User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fowler&fowler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What about a few lines on - Rise of Indian Nationalism - national awakening (mainly within the intelligensia)^[1] - realization of concept of nationhood (due to central administration of British Government as opposed to the previous small sized regional princely states)- confidence gained due to study of Indian heritage by Max Mueller and others KnowledgeHegemony 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! There are some concerns that your comments that this RfC didn't address the specific reasons for the RfC and are more of a general character endorsement, rather than a response to the problems listed there. Do you care to stop by the talk page and clarify? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

... interested in being nominated for adminship? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. I could have sworn you edited another editor's comment, not your own. I was obviously mistaken. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your time. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fowler. Would you mind uploading Image:IGI british indian empire1909reduced.jpg to Commons, so it can be used in other projects as well? Thanks very much.

Incidentally, I happened to see the discussion on Sangam literature a little higher up on this page while leaving this message. There are actually a range of views on the question of whether Sangam literature was "oral" - Kailasapathy and others take the view that they were oral, George Hart takes the view that the Sangam literature was not oral, although it was written in imitation of actual bardic literature, and Kamil Zvelebil takes an intermediate view that the poems are clearly Kunstdichtung based on older oral forms, but that it is unclear whether they were actually written down on palm leaves at the time. A fourth view was recently put forward by Herman Tieken, who holds that the entire corpus is a 10th century forgery created by nationalist elements at the Pandyan court, but this view has not yet garnered much support in the literature. -- Arvind 11:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend reverting to the older maps. The rivers maps I drew are not accurate, POV, and poorly drawn, not to mention a less useful raster format. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my immediate response has been less than friendly. It's just that I put some thought into the reorganization and was disappointed to see it overturned. I hope we can work together in the future. And I welcome your input on my Kashmir-related additions elsewhere. Regards, El_C 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I responded on my talk page, here. Regards, El_C 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fowler, I saw the changes you made to the British Raj from the short history section. First of all well done on the good review. However, I will say could you please make a suggestion in the talk page before actually changing it (like in the India page). The reason I say this is because I had earlier linked the first world war bit to the "conspiracies" etc and the relevant events but these were undone by the edit you made.

Also, the talk page of British Raj shows there might be some biased (and inaccurate) views on part of some editors (of the talk page, I dont know if they have edited the main page) which if introduced into the main page would make it PoV. This would include, eg, civil war under Moghuls, suggestions that Quit India movement (I gathered) was linked to the INA, was relatively minor and not of consequence, the stuff on the INA that verbatim repeated war time propaganda. I do think though your additions to the bits on railway economy etc was wanting in the British Raj article, but they will be deemed unneccessary in the Indian independence movement article. Lastly (and not wanting to introduce PoV), there should be a mention of balancing criticisms, including the views on economic exploitation, and poor managements See for example papers on these in JSTOR (Lovett 1920, Sarkar 1921, Sarkar 1983, Tinker 1968, Childs 2001, 2005)

One other thing was, the bit in the World War I, you quote the viceroy as having expressed concerns on denuding India of the troops, whereas Strachan's 2001 history of World War I quotes the viceroy as having expressed the opinion that the less that remains in India he better since they were the likely source of trouble.(Strachan, 2001, p793). These are two diametrically opposite records from the same person in the same situation, you might want to double check this.Rueben lys (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fowler&fowler!

Isn't that a national award? It's called, Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Awards, so I definitely think it's national. What does make you think that it's private? All the most prominent figures of India's government take part in the annual ceremony. I guess, it can't be added in the template in that particular field, but do you have any idea of adding it in the template? The template's name is "Indian honours and decorations", nobody says official or private or whatever, so I strongly feel that it has to be mentioned there.

BTW, did you know about this award before (before I created it)?

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be called national, but as the article says, "it is a social initiative of Godfrey Phillips India," which is very much a private corporation. Attendance by government officials doesn't make it a government award. Honours and decorations of a country refer to honours and awards given in the name of the nation, and are a part of the order of precedence in the country, and therefore are the official honours and decorations; otherwise, there would be no end to the number of awards that could be added. That is the reason why the Jnanpith award, also a private award, is not included, even though it is very prestigious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the same for other countries. See, for example, the template Template:British honours system, or Orders, decorations and medals of the United Kingdom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem friend:) Well done... tell me please, have you heard of this award before? Interesting. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't heard of it, but then I might not be the best sample for the poll. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case you need to make it clear in the template that they are awards given by the government ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The template won't say that (because it is understood that a national "honours system" refers to honours awarded in the name of the nation by the government of the day or the reigning monarch, see the British template above), but the talk page of the template has the banner of the Wikiproject (see below) and also (now) a post explicitly saying "No private awards please". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

{{WPODMBanner}}

Hello Fowler. The British Raj doesn't have anything on the economy. I know you're currently editing this page quite extensively, but I wanted to add a summary section on the brief economic developments summarising what you found in Riddick (2006, pp138-143). I let you know to avoid any edit conflicts and/or misunderstandings, and also I am not very thorough with this topic. Regards Rueben lys (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message on the talk page. I am taking off on my Christmas vacation, so I will work on the text off-line, and add it upon my return in January. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you too! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken Sitakunda Upazila to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive1, and so far recieved no comments, almost. Please, take a look, and be ruthless if you want. I have high hopes for the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aditya, I'm going away on my winter break in a few hours, so I won't be able to look at the article until mid-January. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very alright. When you come back, can you take a look at the copy? It's been already removed from GAN on copy issues. I sincerely am not able to do much there, as (1) I have lived too close to the article for too long, and (2) I am not a brilliant copyrighter anyways. I, of course, will be able to render much help as an assistant (answering questions, filling in gaps, getting new information, clarifying stuff...), but the real copyeditng needs serious intervention. I am looking forward to your help there. Very much. Pleeease. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Slotin. I responded to your comments. I will fix up the holes that you mentioned. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to thank you for noting some of the issues with the article. Some of them (the ones I could work on) were very helpful, and I'm glad you picked them up along the way. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue putting the star on my userpage. I will work on the article from the references you provided, and once I am done, I will surely ask you to review the article again. Fair enough? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Your userpage? I wasn't talking about your userpage (on principle I never read userpages). I was talking about the star on the Louis Slotin page. Anyway, I will be happy to look at the article, when you've incorporated the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See item #9 on WP:NFC. The bot is removing the fair use image from the page because it is in the userspace. Per policy, fair use images are only allowed in the mainspace. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fowler,

I listened to your opinion and tried to delete the sentence on the PRC page:"Because of its vast population, rapidly growing economy, large research and development investments, and status as a declared nuclear weapons state, China is often considered as an emerging superpower."

This is bias, undue weight, speculation, unnecessary, not neutral, and not factual. Please leave your opinion on the talk page of PRC. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The China page has lost its Featured Article status, in part because of such exaggerated statements. The India page has been consistently in the top five accessed country pages for the last year and a half. The China article is nowhere in the picture, in part because no one wants to read that crap. Although I greatly sympathize with your concern, I don't really have any interest in the China page. Sorry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&flower. Regarding the Kashmir region language issue, you did the following:

Fowler&fowler (Talk | contribs) (47,175 bytes) (nope, okwhatever, hindi is not spoken in the kashmir region. (this page is not about official languages, see talk page). uyghur is spoken in aksai chin. OK?) (undo)

I undid this, and I hope you do not mind it. Uyghur is not spoken in Aksai Chin, however, because Aksai Chin is virtually uninhabited. I saw the wikipedia page for Aksai Chin and I noticed that it said that the people there speak Uyghur; that is incorrect, however, because that part of the Kashmir region has a negligible, nearly zero population. Even if there are a few people speaking Uyghur, that number is negligible (for example, I am sure there are atleast 5 Gujarati speaking people in the Kashmir region, however...Gujarati is not up there with the many languages, because 5 is a negligible number). See http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramukashmir.html and http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Aksai_Chin/id/1906006, which both state that the population is negligible/the area is uninhabited.

Hindi is spoken in the Kashmir Region. (http://www.bharatonline.com/kashmir/travel-tips/languages.html "Hindi: The second most spoken language of Kashmir is Hindi. It is mainly spoken by the Kashmiri Pandits and the Gujjar population of Kashmir.") See http://www.kashmirstudygroup.net/awayforward/mapsexplan/languages.html for more numbers regarding Hindi in the Kashmir region. I do not see where you got that Hindi is not spoken in the Kashmir region. It is spoken by thousands permanent residents natively, and the majority of the state speaks it as a second language.

Thank you, and sorry for any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaywhatever (talk • contribs) 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The web pages you've cited are not reliable references. Find me an article in a peer-reviewed internationally recognized journal on linguistics or South Asian studies that says Hindi is a native language of Kashmir. See Colin P. Masica's Indo-Aryan Languages for the native languages of Kashmir. And yes, even if there are five thousand Uyghur speakers in Aksai Chin, they are not in the same category as your ridiculous Gujarati speakers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I cannot believe you have the audacity to put Uyghur as a native language of the Kashmir region. Are you on an anti-Hindi and pro-Uyghur drive because of political reasons? Uyghur is spoken by Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Find me ONE source that says that there are Uyghur people in Aksai Chin. Anywhere you look, it will state that Aksai Chin is almost uninhabited, and the few people there are Tibetan.

I guess you looked at wikipedia to find out what most of the "residents" of Aksai Chin are: "Aksai Chin, whose residents speak the Uyghur language (the name literally means "Chin's desert of white stones") is a vast high altitude desert of salt that reaches heights up to 5,000 metres. Geographically part of the Tibetan Plateau, Aksai Chin is referred to as the Soda Plain. The region is almost uninhabited and receives little precipitation as the Himalayan and other mountains block the rains from the Indian monsoon." It says that Aksai Chin is almost uninhabited, and that the residents speak the Uyghur language??? Isnt that a bit contradictory...

"China-administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin) contains an extremely small population of Tibetan origins numbering less than 10,000 inhabitants." (http://www.mapstars.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174) The few people that live in the region are Tibetan, so why would Tibetans speak Uyghur? Uyghur is spoken natively by Uyghurs, and Tibetan is spoken natively by Tibetans. It does not matter if the Tibetans can even speak Uyghur, because it is not their native language, and you have clearly stated that you are just going for the native languages. If you are going to add Uyghur just because some people can speak it as a second language (which they probably dont, because it makes no sense that Tibetans would speak Uyghur...), then you would also allow Hindi because the majority of Kashmiris can speak it.

Hindko is not native to the Kashmir region either. Hindko is spoken in the NWFP (Northwest Fronteir Province) of Pakistan. It may be spoken by people in Pakistan-administrated Kashmir, but those people are migrants to Kashmir. They are not native to the area. I suggest that you take Hindko out if you refuse to allow Hindi, because there are many Hindi-speaking people in Jammu and Kashmir, even if they are not "native". The language of the Gujjars, which are nomads in Kashmir, speak Gojari, a dialect of Rajasthani. There are many migrants in Indian-administrated Kashmir that speak Punjabi and Hindi natively; why are these languages not accounted for?

Hindko, Pothohari, and Uyghur are not native to Kashmir. Pothohar is native to Pothohar (in Punjab, not Kashmir). Hindko is native to the NWFP. Uyghur is native to Xinjiang. Hindi is not native to Kashmir either. However, there are people in Kashmir that speak Hindko and Hindi natively. If you are going to keep a language that is not even spoken in Kashmir (Uyghur) and not allow a widely spoken language (Hindi) on the basis that it is not native to Kashmir while you allow languages that are not native to Kashmir (Hindko and Pothohari), then I do not see what your point is. What are you trying to do? Please, get rid of political bias when you are editing a neutral encyclopedia.

I could change it again now, but then you would undo those changes once again, for no proper reason. As you undid my changes, you should once again make those correct changes. Please do not edit information to suit your personal, political views, because your political opinions do not change what is fact. It is a bit selfish to give wrong information to the world, just so it agrees with what you want.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaywhatever (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't impute reasons ("anti-Hindi" or "pro-Uyghur") when you don't really have the information. If you think I am anti-Hindi, please read my various posts here and here. The only reason why Hindi is listed as the official language in the India page infobox (and not all 22 8th schedule languages) is that I and a few other people gathered the sources to demonstrate that. Please also notice the barnstar on my userpage for those efforts. As for "pro-Uyghur" and your conjecture that I extrapolated from what I read on the Aksai Chin page, all I can say is that I had read a number of late 19th century and early 20th century accounts of British Indian expeditions to East Turkestan (now Xinjiang) when I was adding references to the Hindutash article (please see the references there). It is true that Aksai Chin (also, Ling-zi Thang Plains, and (modern) Aksayqin) is sparsely populated, and there is very little modern literature on the subject mainly because the Chinese government doesn't grant permission, but earlier accounts record the presence of Shi'a Muslim Uyghur-speaking nomads in the northern part of Aksai Chin. (It is the southern and eastern part that has more Tibetan influence (see, for example, the place names in the sixth map in Trotter's paper that I added to the Hindutash article , or the W. J. Johnson's map that I also added to the Hindutash article); however, it is also the southern and eastern part that is uninhabited.) The names too, in the northern part, are Uyghur. For example, Karakash (river), Hindutagh (pass). The northern region of Aksai Chin also lay on one of the two routes from Kashmir (Leh) to Khotan (in Chinese Turkestan). At the same time I was putting together the references for the Hindutash article I talked to someone who took motorcycle trip through Aksai Chin. He said many of the old "towns" are now mere "truck stops" (with a few scattered sheds here and there). However, regions, even sparsely populated ones have languages (often deduced by examining place names). Uyghur has to be one of the languages of Aksai Chin; Tibetan could be added as well—the only reason why I didn't add it is that Ladakhi is written in the Tibetan script, but I am happy to change Ladakhi to Ladakhi/Tibetan. As for Hindko etc. I agree that the proper names for the dialects (of Hindko or Lehnda (Western Punjabi)) are Poonchi and Chibhali (see my post on Languages in the Talk:Kashmir page). Some Pakistani nationalist keeps adding the Hindko/Urdu bit. I am on vacation and have only brief snatches of time (not enough to engage people in edit-wars), so I will attend to it when I get back in mid-January. I am against all forms of nationalism, Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. On a humorous note, the Mapstar link you provided is a direct cut-and-paste of an earlier version of the Wikipedia Kashmir region article? How do I know? Well, simply because I wrote most of the article! I didn't write the Aksai Chin bit, and that part is not reliable. (It was likely added by someone after my re-write, or perhaps earlier by someone else, and I let it remain.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I must compliment you on your continuing efforts to improve Western Chalukya architecture. I admire your ability to maintain a clear focus on the article's problems in the face of seeming resistance. It certainly could be a very good article, but I agree with your points about "clarity, cohesion, and coherence" in prose. It is crucial that the writer know in depth what he is writing about (at least this is true of me when I write) and not parrot back information in reworded sentences. And to me there are still major problems in organization. Plus phrases like "worthy of mention" need to be banished. At least Deities has been move from its primary spot. I bet you and I could rewrite the article, and Dinesh would be satisfied at the end. (I do believe this!) Regards, Mattisse 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Unfortunately, I don't have to time to help in rewriting the article. Since you are a superb writer, why don't you attempt the rewrite and I'll weigh in from time to time. (With the "renomination" though, the rewrite will likely have to wait. I don't like this under the gun kind of editing.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With reference to this edit from a few days ago: whilst I have no opinion on whether the use of "ancient" is appropriate in the context, Yunan is used in Urdu to refer to Greece generally, and not just ancient Greece. The Urdu wikipedia's article on Greece is, for example, at یونان. Also see the infobox on ایتھنز and so on. -- Arvind (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I should have been more careful in my edit summary. The problem one is dealing with (in the translation) is that when an Urdu reader sees "Yunan, Misr, Roma (the last really Byzantium and not Rome)," it is at once clear to her/him what the context is. That context is not obvious in English (unless, of course, one clicks on the links). That is why I have added the "ancient." Well, why don't I ask some experts and see what they say? Will get back in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS When I first saw the section title, I thought it was about the Chinese Province Yunan!.

I've personally always thought Iqbal was drawing a contrast between Greece, Egypt and Rome - where the country continues but not the civilisation the land nurtured - and India, where both still exist. Anyway, if you have access to experts, it'll be great to hear what they think. -- Arvind (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This warning is regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Chalukya architecture. I urge you to stop making jabs at Dinesh, and talk about the article's issues only. As I mentioned before, be bold and make the necessary corrections yourself. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No templating the regulars.59.91.253.165 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, I'll take care of this. Fowler's comments on the FAC were not out of line. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is "templating?" In any case, thanks to everyone. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Templating" in this case refers to dropping the canned warning on your talk page. Doing that to an established user is considered a slap in the face. Raul654 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I must disagree. This warning was left here for a reason. I told Fowler to be civil, but he continued to make jabs at Dinesh's writing skills and the work he put into the article. So, I left a template on this user talk page as a reminder of our policies on personal attacks. If people would stop feeling elitist about their contributions to Wikipedia, they would realize that templating is employed to remind users that they are violating some sort of policy and that blocks may be issued for future violations. If they are as established as they say, then they surely would not have violated policy in the first place. No disrespect intended, Fowler, but I only left this warning to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem at all for me. I don't mind the template. Please go ahead and un-cancel the warning or template it again (whatever is the right expression). To be honest, I had not noticed the template. I don't understand the bit about being elitist, but I'm happy to be templated again. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that elitist bit was part of my rant. Some established users expect preferential treatment on Wikipedia, which is why they get upset when you template them. I strongly believe they should be treated like non-established users, but I doubt we'll see that ever happening. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it seems to me you'd got the hint and the FA or rewrite was going to proceed and everything was going to come out all right in the end. Then things veered to the surreal. I don't see why people are still beating you up now (although changing your view to strong support may have been a bit over the top!). If we can't make honest criticism without overreacting, we'll never get anywhere. I hope things work out... sorry if my counsel was part of swinging too far the other way. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my change of mind had nothing to do with you. Your comments have actually been very helpful (and I'd like to compliment you on your very readable posts). I wasn't trying to be sarcastic either when I changed to "strong support." I know it might appear a bit over the top, but I feel that a rewrite by the various interested people is the quickest way to fix the article. The rewrite won't happen so long as the FA review continues, since the various authors will feel pressured to respond to all the mini comments (pro and con) and won't have time to look at the big issues. So, especially after I read Kiyarr's post, I wondered why not get the FA issue out of the way and attend to the business on hand right away. I know it might appear that I'm being cynical, but I was really only trying to speed up the process. The article doesn't need my comments. What it needs is a sustained effort by user:Frutti di Mare, user:Giano_II and user:Mattisse (with help of course from user:Dineshkannambadi). They already have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. Besides, I myself don't have any interest in rewriting the article, so there is no conflict of interest in my supporting it for FA. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I do think that I need to be more polite. I don't start out with the intention of slashing and burning everything in my path, but it certainly sometimes seems that way when I look back at my handiwork. I'm envious, for example, how someone like user:Raul654 can keep his cool with all the noise around him, some of which I myself have generated. Maybe I should read his talk page more often (and learn a thing or two). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification.

Since I have received off-Wiki mail about this section, I'd like to clarify that many of my remarks below (and indeed some of Magicalsaumy's remarks as well) are jocular. The jocularity wasn't planned, but was rather a product of the mood and the moment. However, at no time below am I making fun of anyone's English: neither Magicalsaumy's, nor India's or Pakistan's, nor yet the kind acquired at Catholic schools. Indeed my own mother received a superb education at a Good Shepherd Convent high-school, albeit not in India or Pakistan. Underpinning the jocularity is a content issue as well—about the native languages of Kashmir—which shouldn't be disregarded. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Look Fowler, if you don't know, then don't speak. Don't try to show off your naivity by presenting your ignorance. With your comments it is very clear that you don't know an iota of linguistics, but I know much about it, having taken many courses. Hindi and Urdu are the same language, differing only in special vocabulary and script. You comment that "might have syntactic similarities...." proved your ignorance. And you only said on Kashmir page no dialects: so why Dogri? Dogri is a dialect of Western Hindi.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Magicalsaumy, I've never heard of the word "naivity." Did you learn that in your linguistics courses? Amazingly, my OED doesn't have that word either; only naïveté, which I'm sure is incorrect. You might consider writing them and suggesting the correction. Many thanks. Similarly, according to Ethnologue, Dogri is a dialect of Western Pahari and not of Western Hindi, but I'm sure that's a mistake. It would be wonderful if you could rectify that too. My compliments to your linguistics professors. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see now. You reverted my ENTIRE edits, which INCLUDED my addition of citations that were needed for the paragraph of post 1947. Thats what I was wondering. You are doing the erasing of citations so that the lines "appear" factually insufficient. Never mind, I reverted your edits. And I am not going to plead with ignorants on language talk pages. Why don't you plead your cases instead. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me once again to express my admiration for you untrammeled erudition. I wish I had thought of "doing the erasing of citations." What a superb literary device—at once simple and quick—for delaying the action in the sentence! Imagine the possibilities: "I am walking" = "I am doing the walking" = "I am doing the doing of walking" = "I am doing the doing the doing of walking" ... Brilliant! Not since Vladimir Nabokov, nay since Joseph Conrad, has so much tension been built up in one English sentence. And "ignorants?" Brilliant again! No doubt from your linguistics courses? Alas, Webster's Unabridged—so 20th century—continues to label "ignorant" as an adjective ... But not to worry, I have taken note. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I came to your talk page following some rather irksome comments that had been made about a FAC regarding some kind of architecture article, expecting you to be a miserable pedant. However, these ripostes to Magicalsaumy are a delight and brightened my Saturday afternoon considerably.--John Gibbard (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So again, Fowler, you have displayed your ignorance and started protecting yourself by pointing at my mistakes, which have nothing to do with the issues I have brought. And you are pointing silly comments about my grammar. Who in this world told you that Linguistics = "English grammar taught in India/Pakistan's Catholic schools"? Linguistics is a very different thing, and a Linguist CAN make mistakes while speaking or writing any language. Linguist does not mean to be superbly perfect in verbs, adjectives and prepositions. You make me laugh. As for your praise of my courtesy, it seems very much evident from your talk page that you deserve it. And as for your points (ie my apparent mistakes): Yeah, Naivite I get it, but I don't want to spend my precious time to insert the trema and acute accent mark in the French word. I have other more important things to do, you see. Also, Pahari itself is a dialect of Western Hindi. Now again, "doing the easing of": have you never heard the present participle in English being used as a gerund, and hence a noun? "Ignorants": Have you never heard of adjectives being used as substantives? So keep your pathetic ramblings to yourself, and try to EARN some respect in the community. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Substantives!" How elegant! Alas, Father Randolph Quirk, who taught me old fashioned English grammar in the Catholic schools of India and Pakistan (from his ugly dog-eared tome of seventeen hundred pages), insisted on (oh so inelegantly) calling them "adjectives as noun-phrase heads" instead, and claiming, to boot, that "noun substantives" was obsolete lingo. I remember the learned Father droning on about the three kinds of "adjectives as noun-phrase heads," exemplified by the sentences: (a) The innocent are often deceived by the unscrupulous (b) The industrious Dutch are admired by their neighbours, and (c) She admires the mystical. This was followed by some mumbo-jumbo that I never did understand: "Adjectives as noun-phrase heads (or "noun substantives"), unlike nouns, do not inflect for number ..." Perhaps you could shed some light on it. Anticipating your wonderful plural usage ("ignorants"), I once asked the learned Padre if "The goods die young" had potential as a warning label for perishable food, but—tested beyond his limited grammatical reach—he quickly changed the conversation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah those good old days in the Catholic Schools of India and Pakistan! ... and then there was Brother Colin Masica, who taught us old fashioned Indo-Aryan grammar from a book, Indo-Aryan Languages, he claimed to have written; however, since the book had exactly 555 pages, we suspected the devil had five sixths hand in it. Brother Colin, who had decided against joining the Jesuit Fathers on account of his previous affiliation to the Russian Orthodox Church, and who had chosen instead the expedient of temporary membership in the Irish Christian Brothers, couldn't help repeating from his book that Dogri was a Western Pahari language; it was consequently, not a dialect of Hindi, which was a Western Hindi language. Anticipating your elegant formulation above that "Pahari is itself a dialect of Western Hindi," I once asked Brother Colin if Western Pahari might not in turn be a dialect of Western Hindi. This had the effect of sending the Brother into a paroxysm of Russian-Irish rage and making him not only throw the Devil's tome at me, but also shout, "You fool, Western Pahari is not one language, but a an Indo-Aryan, North Zone, family of languages. Western Hindi is not one language, but an Indo-Aryan, Central Zone, family of languages. How can one be a dialect of another?" At this outburst, my young eyes welled up with tears, and continued to do so long afterwards, as I wrote Brother Colin's refrain five hundred times on the blackboard.

Magicalsaumy, although your brilliant insights have liberated me, given me such unbearable lightness of being that I fear flying heavenwards any day, they have also brought back those painful Dickensian memories of childhood that no amount of reading of Mourning and Melancholia can remedy. Consequently, I have to cease all communication with you and would kindly request you to do the same. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for making me laugh too much. You need to be a little sensitive about ghosts, you know. I almost died laughing, and then I was crudely reminded of my death 500 years ago. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block! A high honor indeed. However, this will likely pale in the blinding light of the block I am about to receive from my family—human and animal, living and dead, material and ethereal—for spending far too much time on Wikipedia, especially during my vacation, especially after numerous promises to the contrary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have used the word celt in the article on Sitakunda Upazila, but it is creating some confusion as the word generally means a group of people, not an implement. If you can clear this confusion, please, leave a note on Talk:Sitakunda Upazila. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, please help me. User:Nikkul is continuously making disruptive edits in Poverty in India page on issue of inclusion of some images. You know very well this user's edit pattern. I added an image of a beggar in Bodhgaya in the article. But this user is continuously deleting the image with excuse that "since all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue and inappropriate". He replaced the image with a poor quality black and white begger image, which is not helping developing the article. He is also hellbent in adding an image, taken by himself, showing some houses in rural India. But farmer's houses are not representative for what "poverty" stands. In my opinion, an article depicting poverty, only those images should remain which illustrate poverty, i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". The farmer's home is depicting rural lifestyle. This user is continuously removing a good and appropriate image of begger with useless excuses. I think you will be able to handle the situation very well. Please look into the matter. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment just shows his ignorance! Most of Indias poverty is rural not urban. OC continues to delete any image that shows rural poverty. We all know that 60 percent of Indias population is involved in argriculture and that those involved in the industry are the ones who are poor. an image showing poor farmers homes are most appropriate.

Also, there is no reason why my beggar image is not good. Disabilities are common among human beings. A disability is not indicative of poverty...so many rich people have disabilites. Nikkul (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, this user in his defence is engaged in personal attacks on me in multiple talk pages. *You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities. There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

• This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Hkelkar socks about the image. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
• Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image will be very appropriate. A vote is going on in the talk page. I think you are a neutral and good editor. Your right judgement will be appreciated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Parthian earrings taxila.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know it was useful, thought it might cool things down a bit and also help with opinions and views. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It did (I hope). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a page number from the 2006 edition of the Manorama Yearbook? The 2006 edition was cited twice in Mumbai, but a specific page number was not provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. Someone like user:Nichalp would though, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this version http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_spiderman.jpg this might change your mind. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:) I smile only because I know you voted "for." I hope the man is making money off this picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I doubt that he is making money out of it. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page, I'll bear this in mind.

Regards
Pahari Sahib 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI see User talk:Himhifi#Your recent edits --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please hold off on deleting the hindi title until the survey is complete? The purpose of the survey is to establish the usefulness of the hindi title and it could be perceived as inflammatory to delete it. Also, it is hard for other editors to evaluate the usefulness of the title if it is not there. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to keep it in till the survey is over. Part of the reason for the survey is that the devanagri script is being constantly added and reverted and that is not healthy. Let the survey run its course and the devnagri can then be dropped or kept based on whatever the consensus is. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar (my first!). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I am biased of course by the contents of my bookshelf, which is political-science-heavy. That being said, I fancy the sort of precise statement one needs to fight off the quibbling of various POV-warriors quibbling is rare enough. The Rudolphs did do some work some time ago about placing identities and Indian social reform in historical context (though I think most of it focused on Rajasthan), so I'd say they're relatively reliable on this. In particular, the philosophical roots of the pre-1857 reform processes are rarely summed up succinctly elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it belongs in the causes part, but a few remarks on the dispute about the religious nature of the revolt should perhaps be relevant. I think I had a reference in from Chris Bayly, who had looked at sworn testimony of rebels; and of course Dalrymple has been pushing this recently, though he seems to think nobody thought of it before. It's certainly received mainstream news coverage: here's the BBC interviewing WD, [here http://outlookindia.com/fullprint.asp?choice=2&fodname=20060703&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1]'s WD making the point himself in Outlook, and here's a summary of JNU's response. Bose and Jalal privilege "legitimist" reactionaries and "religious millenarianism" in Modern South Asia and Jalal herself in Self and Sovereignty discusses the religious discourse inherent in the call to arms, though indicating that it was not universally viewed as appropriate at the time, a point Bayly also makes. So again: do you think this belongs in 'Causes' or perhaps a brief mention of religion as motivator and more in a separate "nature" section? Relata refero (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I edit-conflicted with you somewhere and screwed up some changes somehow. Sorry about that. Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point. However, the bloodthirsty reaction was not only influential in that it clearly affected the nature of the response, but indeed is one of the most noteworthy aspects of the revolt itself historically. As Brantlinger indicates, it is generally considered the single most influential political event of the nineteenth century in terms of British public opinion. (That the EB article does not have a section on it is puzzling, but not in itself conclusive IMO.)

About the quality of sources, I do of course agree with you. I've used Christopher Herbert's recent book, but only a section that reports on the general attitude of sources that have stood the test of time. Other sources are available, but his turn of expression is the best. Relata refero (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While I may not agree to some of your inputs on the Rebellion of 1857 page, I see that you have contributed constructively to a variety of India related articles. The award was for that - just wanted to clarify in case if you felt I was yanking your chain. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)