User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 9

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.

Thank you for the knid words about my userpage. It is indeed frustrating to watch a debate like the one unfolding on the Gandhi page. I was actually not sure at first whether your move was proper or not for the same reason Beam articulates about making use of the most common name, but once you systematically explained the wikipedia policy on page naming your position made perfect logical sense. Unfortunately, as we have both seen, rational argument rarely wins the day on wikipedia when a person with an agenda comes along. Good luck, and if this does go to mediation and you need assistance of some kind, let me know. Indrian (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"resistance to tyranny" more common (cf Hobbes ("resistance to rights of sover...", Jefferson "resistance to tyrants ..."); plus "resistance of " is ambiguous: can mean resistance offered by tyranny

Me thinks it depends on which side of the Atlantic you get your grammar from. Anyway, it is not ambiguous. I can't see how it could be read to mean it's exact opposite. Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I had both Hobbes (British) and Jefferson (American). Here are the full quotes: 1) Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (volume 2), (II. xxx. 175) "Such is all resistance to the essential Rights of Soveraignty." and, of course, Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "Resistance to tyrants is Obedience to God"

What I meant by ambiguous was simply that "resistance of" is sometimes also used to mean resistance offered by; so, (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 edition) quotes, GREEN (1874) Short Hist. viii. §5. 499 "The threat, however, failed to break the resistance of the (House of) Commons." (that clearly means resistance offered by the House of Commons). Or, we could make a sentence, "The Germans succumbed to the resistance of the French underground in World War II." Here again "resistance of" means "resistance offered by." Granted that no one is going to misinterpret "resistance of tyranny" in the context of Satyagraha (!), still, I think, "resistance to" is the more common expression (especially as a result of Jefferson). (But, nothing in language is hard and fast.)

Anyway, I'm delighted to come across someone who at least pays attention to grammar. "Resistance to" had been there in the text from at least October 2006 (when I first happened upon it) until December 2007, and most readers simply ignored it. Now that I know there is another fellow traveler (in you), I will run by other language related issues with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS If you do a Google search for the exact expression, "resistance to tyranny," you get about 46 thousand links, whereas, a search for "resistance of tyranny" yields 845 links. But again, I'm not saying your construction is wrong. (The Google links may have a lot to do with Jefferson and books written about him.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment you left on my talk page. I too forget to assume good faith many times. Ketankhare (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Henceforth, I will be Supreme Unmanifest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Unmanifest (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fowler. Sorry, I was away for a few days. Do you still need my help in this Gandhi issue? Regards, Húsönd 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on India/Text Peer Review/DemoText, 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/DemoText is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting India/Text Peer Review/DemoText, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the edits due to the new amount of people typing in "Snow Leopard" looking for Mac OS X 10.6. "Snow Leopard" in this case is obviously a capitalized proper noun, while "Snow Leopard" in the article's name is an animals name that has a dubious capitalization, according to the links you sent me. You moved it back, why? I did not see any consensus that we should have every mention a capitalization. Mac Davis (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

On 26 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agra famine of 1837–38, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Please feel free to submit more to DYK if that's what you can do. Nice job! Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you like it? I had nominated it using WP:INNEW --gppande «talk» 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for that link as well. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I comment on the mediation page, I want to let you know that what I say there will be in my capacity as mediator only. Thus, I cannot comment on the merit of your arguments for particular article content. My comments will be restricted to WP policies and other matters pertinent to the mediation. I will be circumscribed in the later due to the lack of input from your interlocutors. I do, however, appreciate your good faith in participating and your diligence in outlining your views about the use of language in the article. You have commented on the clarity this has afforded you. I would add that this clarity may be of considerable assistance in resolving matters on the talk page. The greatest challenges for you may be maintaining civility and assuming good faith with the many who will be relatively aware of the nuances of language that you have elucidated. Sunray (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing further. I suggest that we adjourn the case and continue discussion on the India talk page. First, however, I would like you to consider my comments on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunray. I was away for a few days and have just logged in. I will now look at your comments. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have been busy elsewhere. However, it would be nice to move the India case along. I think we can easily do that due to your very thorough analysis. If you are able to do a summary on the med. page, we can then port it over to the India talk page. I think that will enable us to complete on the matter. Sunray (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I have now added the summary. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Boffo summary F&F! I've replied here. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient stewardship to ensure that the description of India as a liberal democracy was in accordance with acceptable usage. It was a pleasure working with you. Sunray (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fowler, hope edits are going well. I was wondering if I could ask you for some help and have a look through India House. I have listed it for peer review since I wanted to see if it could be FAd, but knowing peer reviews I dont really expect much out of it. A second set would be very helpful for prose, NPOV, and the whole shabang. Hope you can help.Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the culture section is too huge including every possible thing which one might think it to be relating to 'culture'. I think it would be better to have a seperate section abt Film and Music bcoz that itself can speak volumes. Giving info abt different film industries in the country and also which could include famous film stars who have contributed to this field who have made their mark globally. Famous Music directors and their contributions can be added too. Guys you thoughts on this....

Secondly, why dont we have a section on Indian cuisine. This is one of the thoughts that came up on my mind. Since we have varied tastes and cuisines across our country, north is very distinct frm the south, as east is frm the west. Having a Cuisine section may truly spice up the article. What do you think? Guys your thoughts on this too... Im thinking of probably working on these two....

Yeah we could definetely discuss. Let's make the India article much more informative and interesting. Cephas 405 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see user:Nichalp's post on the Talk:India#Points_to_be_discussed_are_below page. Work should be first done on the daughter article Culture of India and effort made to have it featured. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked him because his block was based off of a username problem that I didn't feel had much merit. He could have been doing what he's doing now under his IP, at any rate. But I admit it wasn't the best decision I've ever made; would've been wiser to have him edit articles under the IP to see how that went... anyway, I'll keep an eye on everything. Some of his wiki-practice is just plain off, and I don't think it's wise to operate under the assumption that an editor is totally beyond help. On that note, he has been making good copy-edits here and there... ermm... okay, not much to go on...

I'll see what I can do (although I'm a tad busy off-wiki, so I might not be particularly agile). I do believe that with a little bit of patience, he can be made into a better editor (particularly on the talk page; I've discussed this with him, but it hasn't completely taken hold yet). Same goes for anyone. OOOR I could be horribly wrong and everything will crash and burn :-/ but a wiki is a flexible thing, so I'm not too worried about that :-)

Apologies in advance for the trouble he's caused/may cause under this username (anons are easier to ignore, I suppose). I'm 63% positive something can be worked out that will benefit all of us, including him. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I'm 37% positive that something can be worked out that will harm him more than he's harmed himself, and just make everyone feel crappy. But I'm aiming high :-)

I dunno... lots of medcab work helps, since I can't - by definition - be part of the problem (except for the first few times, usually). Also, I sometimes (not often) type what I really mean in all honesty, clear it, and then say what's more-or-less supposed to be said, and then affix a smiley at the end, if appropriate :-) (then I revise whatever I said, like, 5 times, causing nearly that many edit-conflicts).

And the old maxim "content, not contributors"... but even then, sometimes it is the contributor, but the only relevant abstraction above "person at keyboard" is editor. Even for POV pushing nationalists, et al, because what they haven't understood yet is that this is a wiki(before it's a pedia), and with that a whole bunch of practices that aren't usually employed in RL (which is sometimes unfortunate). Abstracting above editor into Pro- and Anti- camps (or whatever) tends to cause about a billion problems.

My only obstacle right now regarding said user is whether A) I have sufficient wiki-practice, and B) I can teach it, or however that works. Stealth mentoring? I dunno... Anyway: being that Wikipedia is basically a really time-consuming hobby, I think that the degree of serenity/fun is nearly inversely proportional to the degree of seriousness. Although drama can be entertaining in a sort of sick way, but it's kind of like nicotine in that regard :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

I have begun a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and am wondering if you are interested. *smiles* This project is not a clone of the defunct League Of Copy Editors because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).

I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. A handful of people have already expressed interest at the proposal page, and if you're interested, feel free to sign up at the project page itself and discuss the project at its talk page.

There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. I am in the process of getting word out about the project, so I'm pretty sure we will be in good stead to fulfill our goals.

Cheers! -Samuel Tan 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was glad to be able to help out. All mathematicians have priority disputes in their careers, particularly the best ones. Often not publicly known and highly ambiguous, they have no place in a BLP. This is particularly the case when short biographies like that of Atiyah cannot do full justice to his considerable scientific contributions. BTW, Whiteside was actually one of my colleagues (hence the nickname) - he was quite a colourful character :-) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:fowler, In the talk page your main argument was that No scientist from reputed oraganisations like TIFR supports Raju's case. But I have provided in the talk page which prove otherwise.

Regarding "Almeida case", See apologies sent by Almeida to Raju http://ckraju.net/Joseph/Almeida_Joseph.html. I hope you will correct yourself in both of these issues in the talk page.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Test Problem: Dear F&f. I'm afraid the fact that you know the names of some mathematicians does not impress me. So, here is a little test problem. With a fraction of the knowledge you repeatedly claim to have, you should be able to solve this; if not, alas!

Consider the space of gauge invariant operators in ${\cN = 4}$ SYM theory on $S^3 \times R$. Consider, the supercharge $Q$ with scaling dimension +1/2, SU(2) \times SU(2) angular momenta: (1/2, 0) and SU(4) R-charge (1,0,0). If you are unfamiliar with the action of supersymmetry in this theory, see, for example, N. Beisert's thesis at: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407277

For operators, at a given scaling dimension, one can consider the index of $Q$ i.e the number of Q-closed operators minus the number of Q-exact operators weighted with an appropriate (-1)^F. Find the growth of this index, with scaling dimension, for large scaling dimension d: n(d) = ?

Perusnarpk (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Don't copy and paste stuff from papers of Raju Junior. Perhaps, you would like convert your question (as Witten does) to the language of cohomology, projective bundles, and moduli spaces? Actually, don't bother. I've had enough of these shenanigans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, despite generally agreeing that there isn't sufficient reason to cover the allegations against Atiyah in that article, I think your comments on the talk page about Perusnarpk are not helping to move the discussion forward. These discussions are difficult for everyone involved. It would be easier for everyone, on both "sides", if you could focus on the article itself and strive to ignore anything unrelated to it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

F&f despite your apologies here, you continued making personal and potentially libelous attacks on C.K. Raju and other individuals in your posts. Hence, I have created a RFC regarding this behavior of yours. Perusnarpk (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For the excellent articles and the obscure yet important images you've contributed to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to peep in and say "Hi". Well, your contributions are extremely impressive, especially your work on the British Raj. The article now appears like a sure FA prospect. The images, I noticed, were extremely rare and invaluable. Kudos for uploading them. By the way, if you don't mind, could you please tell if I could get older editions of the Imperial Gazette on the web for free.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 08:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks very much for the award!! I will definitely cherish it. Thanks also for the compliments. Yes, the British Raj article is steadily improving (if I may say so myself). As for the Imperial Gazetteer of India question, I'm not sure. The 1907-1909 editions might still be under British copyright (100 years after the year following the death of the author(s)), although not American, but that could mean that they might not be freely available on the web (eg like on the Gutenberg Site). the dsal site at the University of Chicago makes them available for viewing, but not for copying, as far as I'm aware. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :-). Well, I was able to find the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer online, but not the earlier editions. I am, especially looking for the The Indian Review series by G. A. Natesan which was published in the early 1900s and The Madras Legislative Council: Its Constitution and Working between 1861 and 1899 by K. C. Markandan, S. Chand & Co., 1964. However, I observe that none of these works are available online. I've searched some premium bookstalls here but though I was able to find some very rare books, the books I've mentioned above continue to elude me. I guess Google Books does not present works published after 1870 for download unlike Project Gutenberg where you could download all books not covered by the American Copyright laws (i.e. those published before 1923). But then, very few books related to India are actually present in American libraries and thence, in Project Gutenberg. Thank you -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cuerius what is the deffinition of an english User and can you discribe it, I mean how could a persion be able to read a laungruage if they weren't able to speak it and wouldn't understanding it be just as good as speaking it? --J intela (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Also the figers for english speakers in india are almost two decades old and bound to be alot smaller then the current level now.

I also checked your sources and searched around on the intenet and I couldn't find any proof mentioning that specific figer exept the censuse source whitch already is out of date as I mentioned, so thiers no information to the contrery that the figer isn't more like 200 million especialy at the rapedly fast rate its bieng lerned by all sectors of society and its much greater knowlege by the young though your proboly right about the 350 million figer being a gross over estamet --J intela (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It happens all the time. People learn the alphabet, can read the words and (slowly) understand as they read, but are unable to converse since the latter requires a different kind of approach to language learning, and engages a different part of the brain. In contrast, tourists (say on their way to a foreign country) have the opposite problem, they are able (if they have been practicing with a tape) to converse, but not read. Speakers are required to do three things: speak, understand spoken English, and read.

As for the numbers, we can only go by what reliable sources say, and the last reliable estimate was the census. Speaking of the sources, I notice that a number of links there are dead. I will try to find new sources, however, I don't think they numbers could have gone up to 200 million. They will more likely (given the Siemens report of 2004, at around 100 million) be in the 120 million range. Thanks for your post. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already apologized for my intemperate remarks against C.K. Raju, but what is the point of saying, "if he doesn't stop?" Where is the evidence that I have continued this behavior. I had never heard of Raju until this dispute began, and as far as I'm aware I've said nothing beyond what is quoted in the RfC (and in that window of time). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my initial wording. It was not that I expect you to continue simply that I feel all other editors so far appear to me to be saying either the behaviour was okay, or the behaviour didn't help but not something ever enough to warrant action. If this isn't yet obvious, I disagree with this view, I consider the behaviour poor even though I appreciate no harm was meant, definitely not enough to warrant action yet but if it were to continue it probably would. I felt it important to express this view both for you to read but also since, if the RFC survives, it may be read by future editors. Also, I fear that this view may be at least partially being lost because the users who brought the RFC are hardly sympathetic 'plantifs' and perhaps also because many editors agree with your views on CK Raja. (Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything untoward here, simply that I think human emotion can sometimes cloud our judgement.) But I agree, "doesn't stop" was a poor choice of wording here so I've modified it accordingly and also tried to clarify the end. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to write anything on the RfC because I hoped it would die away, as it has done (at least for the moment), but I would like to thank you for your scholarly approach and all the good work you are doing on the history of mathematics. As you probably know better than I, it's not the easiest subject in Wikipedia to work on, but you're doing very well indeed. Thanks a lot, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jitse. I think the RfC has made me a little wiser, or at least I hope that it has. I will try to spend more time on writing the articles, and less in combating people on talk pages; the latter activity, I find, gets me worked up, which is apparently exactly where my interlocutors want me to be, since they can then complain about my behavior rather than be forced to talk about a textual issue. Thanks again for the encouragement! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&fowler! I see you are on a wikibreak, so I won't expect any activity for awhile, but I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the mediation proposal at Talk:Snow Leopard#Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization. I am very interested in seeing a resolution to this. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gandhi kheda 1918.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Gandhi Kheda 1918.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Gandhi Kheda 1918.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copyedit by Xn4; the raj is no longer a colloquialism (other than etymologically) and certainly not for just British India". In reply - 1. With all due respect, no other user's edits are required to be discussed with you in advance. 2. The contribution you reverted was not "inaccurate". The term "British Raj" is still a colloquialism, nowhere satisfactorily defined, except post facto on the basis of the uses it's put to, which are decidedly muddled. I certainly agree with you that 'British Raj' is not an exact equivalent for 'British India', a term which has real significance. 3. From the comments headed "Your edits to British India" which you've left on my talk page, it seems you have an obsession with keeping everything to do with British India within an article called British Raj. I don't agree. 'British India' is both an authentic term which deserves to be defined at its own page and a topic which merits some coverage. In any event, the subject is so vast that any attempt to force it into only one page would be contrary to policy. Xn4 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please hold on to your day job (whatever that is) and refrain from analyzing my obsessions. You might not agree with me, but it still doesn't give you the right to undo a redirect that has stood for at least two years. I'm not a big fan of British Raj myself (preferring Crown Rule in India instead), but the consensus on the Talk page has been to keep the British Raj title. But if you want to play hard ball, that's your prerogative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see OED on-line edition has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice others have complained about your abusive style here on your talk page. If you're in the habit of handing out such 'plain speaking', then I'm afraid you need to learn to take it. You've linked above what you say is the OED online definition of 'British Raj': "Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion." That sounds authentic to me, and it's a meaning I'm happy to agree with, but it clearly doesn't include the meaning that 'British Raj' becomes the country itself, a geographical area. The idea (which you certainly seem to promote in your comments above, please tell me if I've misunderstood you) that 'British Raj' should replace 'British India', which ought to be a redirect to 'British Raj', is potty, and it would remain potty even if a thousand Wikipedia users agreed with it. Xn4 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was polite to you; it was you who chose to talk about my obsessions. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. When I gave back to you in the style you were comfortable dishing out, you suddenly began to complain about my abuses. Okay. Whatever.

You might be happy to agree with OED's meaning, but that meaning itself has been changed in light of Wikipedia's lead; for example, as recently as May 2008, OED didn't have the "period of dominion," only the "rule." Now it does. That is a direct consequence of Wikipedia's language, which has remained the same for almost two years. The OED explication in smaller font is an even more direct use of Wikipedia's lead.

No one is saying that British Raj is the same as British India. Only that here are problems with the term British India. 1) It is ambiguous. It was applied to regions of India governed by the British from 1765 to 1947. Those regions kept changing especially during the first half of British rule, Company rule in India). In North-Central India, for example, British India in 1785 included only regions around Benaras; in 1812, it included the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, in 1835, the North-Western Provinces. By 1856, all of what was to become United Provinces of Agra and Oudh was a part of British India. Which British India are we talking about? And, if it is one of these four, what are we going to say there that is not already said in the page: Company rule in India. It is you who seems to be suggesting that British India is about regions governed by the British from 1858 to 1947. No. It encompasses a much bigger time period than that. 2) A British India page would not be about geography either; the geography is treated in the India page or Geography of India page. The page would be about how British India was governed (political, administrative, historical) or about how life was lived in British India (social, economic). All those topics belong to the British Raj page or Company rule in India page. British India, then, merely becomes a term to describe certain regions of the Raj, either the Company's or the United Kingdom's. I don't see why that term needs a separate page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting two of your edits on the article. What you have said in the talk page is perfectly logical, but you'll have to excuse my ignorance about the history of the article as it got in to my watchlist only a couple of days ago when I was trying restore the damage done by a PoV pusher to a number of articles. Since the unrest in J&K, there has been a steady flow of anonymous editors from both the sides trying to paint a distorted picture. Guess, sometimes they can get on to you! Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for replying. Yes, the Kashmir-related pages are routinely visited by POV-pushers representing all hues of the political spectrum. I'm glad you have their number. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As long it's relevant, material can be copied and pasted across talk pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have some free time, could you copyedit Félix Houphouët-Boigny? Prose issues are the only thing preventing this fr.wiki translation from being promoted to GA status. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Will take a look at the translation article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 20 August 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.

Hello sir. Sorry about everything. I did not know someone else was editing the same article, and doing a better job at it. lol. I'll redirect my page and try to incorporate any info I had. However about the mortality figures, I will have to cite Davis's number's because his mortality figures in pg7 and 173 of the book are cited to others, the highest figures are from The Lancet. With all due respect, i just can't keep your word for it that his book is "a polemical account by a maverick academic, has wildly exaggerated mortality figures."Editingman (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The subject is obscured by theories, isn't it? What's the predominant scholarly view of Mike Dash's recent book? Uzhuthiran (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have seen your talk note first. If the source does not directly refer to native forces, then please undo my reversion. If it does, to the exclusion of all manpower that is, then perhaps a different source would be more appropriate. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian famine of 1899–1900, 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.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NB, I've corrected the DYK template to refer to Indian famine of 1899–1900, which was the new article, rather than Bombay Presidency. And my congratulations on it. Xn4 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not have authority to remove this article, and it would be much appreciated if you could avoid making personal remarks. Xn4 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fowler, I noticed you and blue knight were discussing the native states among other things. You mentioned the 1935 act, which I am not knowledgable with regards to the provision in the native states. However, I am quite sure the native states in 1947 were given the option of acceding to either country or staying independent. Thought I'd chip in. Aside from that, please please dont let your emotions get in the way of building good WP relations. We all accept you have worked extremely hard on WP:India, probably more than most people I know, and your contributions without doubt shines through the work. But still, please do give other editors the respect they deserve, and allow them to make a case even if you cant see it immediately, not everyone is trying to push an obnoxious viewpoint, and most listen to reason.:) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

do you by any chance have any relation to dave fowler of the mathematics of plato's academy fame? feel free not to answer and i hope you dont mind my question. Anon 03:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, (and someone else asked me the same question before), but I have enjoyed reading David Fowler's papers and was saddened by his death. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe 2/3 of the Constitution of India is similar to the GoI Act of 1935. This is no way means that the Constitution does not have new content, particularly regarding the states and reservations. And the drafting committee did deliberate extensively about the articles. So it is wrong and arrogant to claim that the Constitution is copied. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was copied, but rather that it was substantially copied.

• Pylee, M. V. (2004) Constitutional Government in India. Delhi: Chand (S.) & Co Ltd. Pp. 656. ISBN 8121922038. (p. 3) "The makers of the India Constitution drew ... especially much from the British-made Government of India Act of 1935. Thus the Constitution of India is the result of considerable imitation and adaptation rather than of originality." Again on page 5: "The Constitution derives directly from the Government of India Act, 1935, many of its provisions almost verbatim."
• Kingdon, G. and M. Muzammil. “A Political Economy of Education in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 36, No. 32, August 11-18, 2001. Quote: "In several respects, the Constitution of India adopted in 1950 is almost a carbon copy of the Government of India Act 1935."
• Jaffrelot, Chris. (2002), "India and Pakistan: Interpreting the Divergence of Two Political Trajectories," Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 15, Number 2, 1 July 2002 , pp. 251-267(17). Quote: "The Indian constitution, promulgated on 26 January 1950 ... 380 articles (of its 395 articles) were drawn from the Government Act of 1935 ..." What is wrong with saying that it was substantially copied? That is what the experts say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but the new provisions are extremely significant, especially the ones dealing with reservations and the schedules related to the states and languages. Why are you ignoring those ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this. Yes, agree with you now. After reading some papers on federalism, I now realize that the Constitution of India was the result of much deliberation. So, even if many articles were similar (or even carbon copies as one of the authors above said) to those in the Act of 1935, they were not borrowed unthinkingly, which the word "copied" can imply. I should have used "was modeled," or "had borrowed." Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Xn4 comments in user talk:Philip Baird Shearer#RfC and my reply User talk:Xn4#British Raj, please try to remain courteous and gracious when addressing the issues raised by User:Xn4, (don't breach WP:CIVIL). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Philip, for the pointer. I was certainly not threatening anyone, just trying to speed up the conflict resolution, but I do understand now that others might interpret this as a threat. I will keep your advice in mind. Thanks ever so much. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

F&F, first off I am not writing this to keep arguing but merely presenting the findings of an established academic. This is from the book (collection of papers) Democracy and Diversity: India and the American Experience. Lijphart prepared a conceptual map (which I cant reproduce for copyright reasons) of the federal-unitary and executive-parties dimensions of various democracies.

The executive parties dimension is based on the following factors, majoritarian electoral systems versus PR, 2 versus many party systems, cpnc. of executive power in sinngle versus multi party cabinets, executive-legislative relationship, pluralist versus co-ordinated interest groups.

The federal unitary dimension is based on unitary and centralized gov. versus federalized and decentralized gov., distribution of legislative power between houses, constitutional flexibility, power and scope of judicial review (remember the Bommai ruling ?), central bank independence.

On the basis of these factors, he rated India (0.29, 1.22), US (-0.54, 2.36), CA (-1.12, 1.78), GER (0.67, 2.52), UK (-1.21, -1.12), FIN (1.53, -0.84) on the executive-parties, federal unitary dimension.

He concludes that India is a federal nation. This research was published in 2007. I hope I have explained myself. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very difficult to have an ongoing discussion, when it is not obvious where new material is being added. I assume your commetns were a reply to mine: if so, I think they should be underneath them. Alterantively please move my comment to where it belongs in the discussion. Please also add the following:

Having looked at the British Raj article (which I had not before), I think that article should focus on 1858-1948, with the "company prelude" section eliminated from that (or largely so). I would aslo suggest that the lists of states (rather than being collapsed should be forked into one or more separate articles: even the collapsed lists are cluttering up the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused: what discussion where? I agree with your comments here though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! How are you? I just stumbled upon this group portrait of the delegates who attended the first session of the Indian National Congress and found that it has been uploaded by you:File:Image delegates INC1885.jpg. Well, it was quite a surprise for me. I desire to inform you that my great-great-uncle Rai Bahadur S. A. Swaminatha Iyer was one of the 72 delegates who attended the first session of the Indian National Congress in December 1885. He made a memorable speech against the salt tax and probably served as a member of the Madras Legislative Council during the 1890s. We do have some old portraits of his in our ancestral home. But I find it very difficult to identify individual members from the group photograph. Could you please tell me if I could get the list of participants somewhere on the internet? Also, if you do get some time, do care to have a peep at this article and some others that I've created :-) .Take care.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 07:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! There must be a lot of pride in your family in having such a distinguished ancestor! I will look into your question about the list of participants as well as at your articles. There are only a few in the picture that I recognize. The European gentleman in European attire in the third row is A. O. Hume; to his right is Dadabhai Naoroji; to Hume's left is the bearded W. C. Bonnerjee and to his left is Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, and to his left is Gopal Krishna Gokhale. I wonder if they were aware of how momentous a sequence of events they were about to set off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that you can't tag an article as "disuted" unless you prove or show cause what the dispute is about. If you feel there is a dispute, I suggest you open one more RFC. You can't keep an article permanently tagged for giggles.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there was a dispute 3 months ago. During the interim the article has not been edited. So, how did the dispute end as a result of a handful of edits, one of which involved removing the disputed tag? As for giggles, I don't know how you come to that; POV-pushing is nothing but a source of mourning and melancholia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been a matter of long discussion on the Talk:North India page. What do you think? I know you are busy with many other articleson WP… so even a YES or NO will help.--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Veneration of Virtue
		In the name of V: For valiantly verifying the various vitriol in this voluminous venue and vanquishing the villains of vulgarity – vindicating the value of our venture – whilst voiding the visibility of your visage, I volunteer to you, Fowler&fowler, this veneration of virtue. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This time I won't take it back! Hopefully I have redeemed the dastardly act of revoking a barnstar. Please keep in mind that the revoke for which I gave flimsy reasons (the real reasons were some of your edits that I found unwarranted) deserved at least this from you!!! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all. Which edits did you find unwarranted? I'd like to know so I can improve my future edits (and I genuinely mean it). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, any clue about user:Abecedare's whereabouts? Has he left? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I'm guessing he might be busy. You could leave a post for him and see if he replies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at Extinct Kannada literature. Wikipedia works on consensus, which requires civil discussion with other editors. Continually reverting edits is considered disruptive. You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|1=your reason}} below this message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Well, the edit summaries do look combative, so I'm guilty as charged, and my family will be thrilled with your decision since they think I've spending far too much time on Wikipedia. (In my defense all I can say is this: in March 2008, we had a long RfC on Talk:Kannada literature and one of the outcomes of that RfC was that we decided that we would not edit Kannada literature and its related pages, including Extinct Kannada literature and Halmidi inscription, but instead let user:Abecedare (the arbitrator) edit the disputed text. So I was surprised that both user:Dineshkannambadi and user:Sarvagnya started editing all three articles a few days ago including changing the name of the page, without discussing anything on Talk:Kannada literature first; in fact, I seem to be the one who has made posts on the talk pages (Talk:Extinct Kannada literature) Anyway, I agree that I was edit-warring and please accept my sincere apology. If you will unblock me, I can certainly give my word to stay away from these articles, which, as you will notice on my user page, user:Fowler&fowler, is not my "work in progress" anyway. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Granted: promise to stay away from the article is good enough. Request handled by: Moreschi (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Moreschi. I obviously need to rethink my editing style. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. Thank you for acknowledging what you did and being willing to improve upon it - most edit warring blocks turn into shouting contests between the blockee and administrators which get nowhere except for raising everyone's tempers. I do admit I was surprised to see you unblocked so early, but after reading your unblock message, I agree with it. Thanks again, and happy editing in the future. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Talk page guidelines:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.

• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting 3RR violations or other incidents to administrators.

Hence I have reverted this edit and modified the title of the thread. Please have a look. Cheers! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I commend you for your edit on Talk:India which makes imminent sense even without the Wikipedia guideline. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi f&f. Ever think of running for admin? It will be messy (!) but might be worthwhile. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for the suggestion and for the implicit confidence in my abilities to do the job. I am completely snowed under right now and don't see things letting up until the end of the year. That might be good time to muse that option. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Just a thought I had hanging around the RfA pages. I'll gladly nominate/co-nominate you and rush to your defense when the many warriors come out howling for your head! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fowler. To respond to your question on the India page, I don't think we can do anything about it. WP:WGR was an utter washout. Wikipedia isn't equipped to deal with clashing regional nationalisms. Even academia has difficulty dealing with it, for that matter. The idea of being guided by what other encyclopaedias do is a good one, but that's been strongly rejected in previous discussions about other topics.

My preferred solution would be to rewrite the entire section in a non-listy way. I don't seen how tossing in the name of an empire without any context about what it was and what it did in any way enhances the article. But I tried advocating that in the past in the Great Festival Discussion, and it was a non-starter.

Part of the problem here is that people are trying to impose a modern construct ("South India") on the history of a time when it didn't exist. Result: the way the southern kingdoms are mentioned comes across more as an attempt to toss in a token mention of the South. Which is probably what it is - what on earth is the Vijayanagar Empire doing in a paragraph which deals principally with events before the tenth century? So you can see why that can so easily degenerate into a squabble for which bit of the South should get the lion's share of that token mention. Of course, the North-east fares even worse as one might expect, but there aren't that many people from that bit of the country on Wikipedia, so it hasn't become as much of an issue.

The more fundamental problem is that the entire section on history is desperately incoherent. The paragraph dealing with the period up to the 3rd century BC (para 1 of the section) deals purely with social history, with a token mention of political history in the last sentence (so there're no specific mentions of Gandhara, or the Kuru state, or Panchala). But when we get to the paragraph dealing with the period from the 3rd century to the 10th century (para 2), we suddenly get mostly political history, with a token mention of social history in the last sentence. Cast a critical eye on the section, and you'll see the lack of a clear, coherent narrative is a persistent problem.

FAR gave me an excuse to take a sledgehammer to Political integration of India, which suffered from similar issues, but that's never going to happen here. Under the circumstances, I think you'll understand why I prefer to leave things as they are, and stick to kinder, gentler topics like the nature of Indian federalism. -- Arvind (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Aravind, for your thoughtful comments. I must confess I agree with most of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)