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.
Hi! I just saw your recent contributions. If you strongly feel that your concerns are not being well addressed, why not try the above process? It will attract more experienced editors and your thoughts will garner greater attention. Thanks, --KnowledgeHegemonytalk17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Docku, Sorry I did see that someone had posted to my talk page, but didn't read your post until I did the FAR. In any case the FAR doesn't mean the article will be de-FA'd, only that the issues will be discussed. And, yes, I've posted on WP:INDIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Kingdom of Mysore FAR
I'm just an occasional, unreliable, clerk on the FAR page! You need to inform the main contributors - I see you've already informed User:Dineshkannambadi but I also suggest User:Sarvagnya based on the page history statistics. I see you've also popped a note onto the Wikiproject India talk page. All you need to do is post these notifications at the top of the FAR request (see any example on the WP:FAR page).--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Rather than arguing each point, you might get some ideas from reading Feature article review: Augustan literature where Awadewit is very adept at using general arguments of recency and inclusion of various points of view in article to FAR discussions to open up the discussion. In this FAR, she is arguing against an entrenched user who always gets his way, except at FAR. She also successfully argued to have Augustan drama FAR'ed, another article by the same entitled editor. (See: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan drama/archive1). She argued for up-to-date scholarship, saying the historical evaluations change over time, and that today it is appropriate to include a wider range of views. She doesn't spend much time arguing specific points. For example, regardless of what the original editor included, perhaps he needs to add the opinion of more recent scholars, and add more diversity of viewpoint. I urge you to consider this suggestion, as Awadewit has been very effective.
Further, her approach is more likely to draw in the opinions of other editors, as it does not depend on determining which of two editors is correct on a specific issue, but rather argues for a general approach. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I think DrKay is right in his response on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Long, rambling, defensive posting disengage the other editors. They understand arguments targeted at the FA criteria, and by extension to WP:RS etc. Frame your arguments not to the article writer, but to the other editors who will be reading the FAR pages. They are not going to understand esoteric discussions regarding an article topic with which they are unfamiliar. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Though the POV issue is huge, it is very subtle. Unless experts or people with plenty of time at hand get involved in the review process and understand the problem as a whole, I wouldnt be surprised even if nothing comes out of this process. Guess the problem is systemic. Docku:What up?00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) restored for continuity
Reply to Docku
Hmm. What happened to your post? I had replied to it earlier, but I lost my connection. Tried it again and find your post has gone! Anyway, here is the reply! Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Docku, I don't think it is that subtle in this particular case ... I don't know if the problem is "systemic" either. There are a lot of very conscientious and hard working editors who write decent FAs. (Off the top of my head I can think of Emmy Noether and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom). The English lit. people tend to produce good ones, as do the math people.
South Asia, is a different matter. Some people like user:Nichalp and user:Saravask (if he is still around) tend to produce good FAs. In some cases though, a page's becoming featured, in my view, has as much to do with how pushy and "wikiambitous" the primary author is, and how much, to a certain extent, they are willing to short-circuit the cooperative give and take of Wikipedia in order to achieve their ambition.
Look at British Empire, for example. It is infinitely better written than Kingdom of Mysore, yet the group of editors there are debating little points of bias and grammar and aiming modestly to recover the GA label they lost. Contrast that with editors, who relentlessly produce cockamamie articles on cockamamie topics, skip peer-reviews or GAs, find kind hapless copy-editors, badger them once, badger them twice, ..., badger them one hundred times, ... and if copy-editor1 keels over from karoshi, they offer perfunctory regrets about absence from funeral, and move on to copy-editor2 ...
I've never been particularly driven to go for FAs myself. I guess the process is too close to writing academic papers, and I'm looking to get away from work. I'm just as happy to spend time looking for corny Life-magazine images for footnotes in my pajamas article as I am adding text and old pictures to Company rule in India. Even in situations like an FAR, I'm having fun most of the time. That's why I can't imagine how people can write vague obfuscating replies. But, that's their problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be my first involvement of any kind in FA process and am going to watch it closely and may be should reserve my judgement till then. I might one day try a GA and FA for the sake of trying. I am not really fascinated. Have my own papers to work on in real life.
As much as I wish certain part of History was different, I have strong aversion for revisionism. If only people took their time to learn from the past (instead of attempting to re-writing), we could have prevented the recent invasion (Mumbai attack).
As of me, I occasionally like to shine up a little on areas I consider interesting which others generally tend to shy away for reasons of controversy, bias or dislike, till my interest drifts onto another topic. I was working recently on Hindi-Urdu controversy, was surprised to see such an important article in a pathetic state. I am generally restricted by online sources. I will be very happy to get your input (after this FAR drama of course) if you have time and interest and would certainly understand if you choose not to involve yourself, for i do appreciate that we all work on voluntary basis. Docku:What up?04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hullo! Just came across this article. Well, do we really need to have population statistics. The population of these provinces at the time of dissolution varied a great deal from the population stats at the time when these provinces are created. -RavichandarMy coffee shop05:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! The short answer is, "no." However, do you have popstats at dissolution? It might be worth having a comparison. Even if you have the stats of the 1951 census (for, I think that was before the reorganization of the states), it might we worth looking at them. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am still struggling to understand how FAR works especially because no one else so far seems to have made any major comments. I guess I will have to watch the process closely. Since the process appears to restart again, you might want to point the changes happened to the article and the template since the process started. Docku:What up?15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The typical FAR (and this one is far from typical) lists the various criteria that are not satisfied and provides examples of the areas that are lacking and, sometimes, outlines what needs to be done to bring the article up to scratch. Hopefully, various editors then leap in and fill the gaps/fix the problems and the article. Either way, the FAR then goes up for a keep/not keep vote. Note that the 'various editors' are usually editors with a history in editing that article or similar articles (which is why the notifications process is so important). It is s a little unusual to see an extensive content battle play out on the pages of FAR. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
do you have access to these following books 1 and 2. Pls e-mail me some text related to Maratha regionalism and nationalism if it can be simply "copied" and "pasted". Pls dont bother if it takes too much of your time. Thanks. Docku:What up?14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wish u a MERRY XMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! HAVE A BLAST!!!
RavichandarMy coffee shop is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I just wanted to say thank you for your help on my query about Robert Blackborne. I hope our paths cross again on here. In the meantime, take care and best seasons greetings to you and yours.MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Amazing how those Prinseps keep popping up, isn't it? ;-) Thanks for the ref on that page with the drawing. Interesing. I wish you a happy and prosperous and Prinsep-filled New Year! Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, sorry for the intrusion. I feel, we could have a Wikiproject British India. It would be laughable if I were to include Baron Willingdon in WP:INTN just because he was the Governor of Madras and equally ridiculous if I were to include Raja of Panagal in WP:UK. A Wikiproject for the British Indian Empire, I feel, would do better to cover that phase of India's history. We could also have the Rajas and Maharajas in it-RavichandarMy coffee shop14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2009
Happy New Year Fowler&fowler/Archive 11!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!
How to use this top Indian Wikipedian list for effective collaboration
Hi, I have added a section 'How to use this list for effective collaboration' on User:Tinucherian/Indians WP page to see if we can put this list to really good use, pl give your thoughts on the same and we can take it further from there. Thanks. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Hi there, Just wanted to say that I am only interested in India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) related topics. You can include me in that list if "Indian" means people interested in those topics. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The relegation of Tipu was a bit puzzling as also was the slight credibility gap between the references to sources in the 'Origins' section and the first mention of the Wodeyars (a 200 year gap, if I remember correctly). And yes, the History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 is better written :-). The historian you refer to, is it Suryanath Kamath? I couldn't find anything on JSTOR by him, usually not a good sign in the social sciences. Nor could I find the referred book in our library (trust me, we have one of the best South Asian collections in the US) though there is a "Handbook of Karnataka" by him (published by the Government of K). On the face of it, the article seems very plausible, albeit with the need for massive copy editing but your comments are, as always, persuasive. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there have been a lot of British administrators who had been left out from WP:IN. By the way, what about Rajah Brooke? Should we add him and his descendants too?
By the way, do have a look at Raja of Panagal. I've nominated this article for a GA sometime back and it's yet to be reviewed. I also started a list, List of zamindari estates in Madras Presidency hoping to get it through the FL-process, but it has run into rough weather right now. I did not know that there were so many individual estates, officially classified as zamindaris. Moreover, the list has been compiled from a table of stats in a 1877 book. Later, I discovered that the table was incomplete and the author has left out a number of zamindaris which actually existed at that time. I could not get a "complete" list anywhere. It would be great if you could look for one. And then, sometimes, the term zamindari, in common parlance, was used to describe both zamindari as well as mirasdari lands. I strongly feel that the number of "official" zamindaris would be lesser in number than the non-zamindari estates which have been labeled zamindari. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ravichandar, I don't know anything about Rajah Brooke, but will look at the page now. The Raja of Panagal article should be copy-edited first. Should I do that on the page itself or copy it to a personal sub-page first? Once I've done that, I will be better equipped to write a brief review on the article's talk page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fowler&fowler. I think it's a mistake to take an article to FAR because you have content issues with it. The nature of FAR is such that most reviewers (as you can see) will not address the content but will focus on citations, readability, etc., because they cannot possibly judge the content that well. It is hard for editors not familiar with the field to judge things like bias and the reliability of sources, and so they focus on things like citation density instead. As well they should, because, short of reading all the sources, I don't see what else they can do. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I am confused what an FAR is about then? Its criteria explicitly mention absence of bias, fair representation of the body of representative knowledge, accurate representation of individual sources, and readability. My interlocutors have put the readability on the back burner, as you know. They don't respond, except arrogantly, to posts on the talk page (as I already pointed out in reply to your FARC talk page post), and they don't let anyone else edit the page on the grounds that it is an FA and requires prior discussion. If one doesn't see the difference between the religion section in Kingdom of Mysore and that in Tipu Sultan, the other writes soaring essays in the FARC that even freshman in decent schools know better than to pen.
I'm a bit stumped too. My problem is that the article reads fairly well (though, of course, it needs extensive copyediting) which means that most FAR reviewers will think it good to go. That's the nature of FAR. However, now that I've read a few of the sources, I see that the text comes largely from weak ones. Kamat, who has a central role in the article, has a total of 11 pages on the Wodeyar kingdom (including Haidar and Tipu) and most of what he says has found its way into the article. Some of the rest of the text seems to have been lifted from Chopra without regard to how it fits. I can't possibly go through each source and see how accurately the article reflects what the source says, let alone analyze the sources for reliability and veracity (wikipedia is not my day job!). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
One problem with the way wikipedia treats bias is that most editors focus on the language used (hence you get statements of the sort 'implying that democracy is better than dictatorship violates NPOV'). One can get away with a biased article that satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, the three cornerstones of wikipedia, by presenting only one set of opinions as long as you do so in a neutral way and the subject matter is esoteric enough. This article, IMO, fails the language test only marginally, there are a few places where the language is inappropriately laudatory, but, on the whole, it seems ok. Your issue is with the way the text is framed, and, though you explain your view at length (perhaps that is a part of the problem), it is hard for others to wrap their hands around what you are saying. Instead the reviewers end up using heuristics like 'how it compares to other FAs' and 'citation density', which, I agree, are inherently flawed heuristics (and would not pass muster in an academic review article which is the content quality that wikipedia should be aiming for). But, wikipedia isn't the day job for these reviewers either and these heuristics get the job done, so this is natural, and, probably, more functional on the average. One has to understand the motivations of the reviewers and present them with a simple way of understanding and evaluating your point of view on the content.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(I have one more point after this one!) Like I said, content issues are best addressed in the article talk page. The FA status of the article does not mean that the article cannot be edited and I don't see how the editors can stop you from editing the article. If you find that you're on the losing side of the dispute, you can always call for one or more of the methods for dispute resolution. For example, if the editors don't let you edit the article, invoke WP:OWN and call for a third opinion on your right to edit the article. If the content dispute becomes an edit war, WP:DR outlines a number of steps you can take to invite outside opinions and adjudicators. (Side note: One of the FA criteria, 1e, is that the article be stable and that may the a line worth taking, along with bias, in arguing against relisting the article.) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You certainly didn't sound sanctimonious to me. So, no need to worry. You've made some very good points. Let me think about them. Thanks a million for taking the time to reply so thoughtfully! Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am warning you. Stop your "revisionist history!" tripe now. This is not the first article I've written an article and I am more than familiar with the ways of Wikipedia and research. I have hunted down and taken down several instances of revisionist history myself, not least the "Hindutva propaganda" tripe you tried to foist back in the days. If you have sources which contradict anything my sources say, bring it on. Or hold your peace. Unfounded accusations of "revisionist history", "whitewashed history!" etc., are personal attacks and uncivil I am warning you to cease and desist. Sarvagnya17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The history in the Kingdom of Mysore page isrevisionist. As I have already indicated, please read what the scholars say about Mysore during the period 1800 to 1947 (especially, in the selection from James Manor), and contrast that next with what has been written in the Kingdom of Mysore page. Negationism, doesn't necessarily involve incorrect statements, such as the article had when it called Tipu Sultan "'de facto' ruler of Mysore", in spite of there being no precedent in the literature for it; rather, it can result from simply being selective in the use of sources. Consequently, a statement that a page has revisionist history, even that an editor has produced a revisionist history, is not a personal attack, but rather a statement about the use of sources which do not accurately represent the current overall state of knowledge about the topic—its consensuses and controversies. In contrast, the kind of posts you routinely pen, such as this one in the recent FAR/FARC (which has edit summary "duh" and which says, among other things, "What a load of "obvious blithering nonsense"!), especially after you have been warned by administrators, such as user:Hersfold, not to engage in them (see post by admin Hersfold, titled "Personal attacks" on your talk page, probably are personal attacks. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PS As an aficionado of tripe (especially in forms tripous, chakna, and menudo), I am assuming that your use of the word is not in the nature of a gastronomic remark. Since in its figurative use, "tripe" usually means "rubbish," it constitutes borderline intemperate language and one you might want to avoid. If editing the Kingdom of Mysore article is causing you unusual distress, please consider a short Wikibreak. I mean this sincerely and not sarcastically or patronizingly. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The "obvious blithering nonsense" was clearly referring to the phrase Pmanderson used which is why it was within quotes. Curious that you didn't seem to take excepton to it when Pmanderson used it. ?
As for de-facto, I could easily cite it to Venkataramanappa who explicitly calls both father and son de-facto rulers. In fact, there's no dearth for literature which explicitly calls Haider "de-facto". Even when they don't use "de-facto" specifically, all authors make it clear that Haider was the ruler for 'all intents and purposes' but not the de-jure ruler. I can't believe that you can keep going on an on and on about it even after it has been removed. Is that your best example of "bias" and "revisionism" in the article. An article doesn't become "revisionist" merely by your assertion. For purposes of Wikipedia, individual opinions are little more than "tripe".
If you think there are "factual inaccuracies" in the article (as one of your tags claims), list them out on the talk page and we'll take care of them like I took care of the vassals/Nizam issue after you brought it up. Merely asserting and reiterating your opinion is not going to cut it. I've read the scholars you cite and nothing in what they say is at odds with what is in the article. This article is only interested in an outline of the history and does not go into excessive detail. If you want to add details, add them to sub-articles and if we find anything that warrants importing into this article, we will.
KoM is a FA (whether you like it or not), just like the India article; and just like the India article, drastic changes to content will not be allowed without prior discussion and consensus. Sarvagnya20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And for crying out loud, it was I who pointed out (in the FAC) that Tipu's image ought to find a place in the article. If I remember correctly, it was I who put it there. Without any resistance whatsoever from Dinesh or anybody. So don't give me your nonsense about ulterior 'Hindutvavadi' motivations or revisionism. We've had enough of it. Sarvagnya21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't read the authors I cite. Haven't even read in its entirety the article you claimed you had, Subhrahmanyam's "Warfare and State Finance." This conversation has come to an end. You are welcome to keep posting your rationalizations here if you'd like, but I will not be responding. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the wishes F&F. I was on your talk page when I got the notification. I first ran into you was when you edited the lead section of the India page several years back (2006?), and asked people not to revert without discussion. I don't know how many years ago was that, but its nice to see you editing since then citing all those sources... I don't know how you manage to find the time to pull out so many sources or how u even get to them but it always amazed me. Hope to see you editing on Wikipedia for years to come. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that well. I don't know how many times I rewrote that lead! And, likewise, I have admired both your ability to go straight to the nub of the issue and to express what you have to say pithily. Hope to see you around somewhere. Keep up the good work at BNHS. Thanks again and all the best! Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I won't have time for BNHS any more. :( I did transfer those BNHS images to my PC, but never got the chance to upload them to wiki. I'll probably use my script to batch upload them to commons one day. =Nichalp«Talk»=20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Xinjiang
Hi! Urgh more trouble again in the Kashmir area. No kidding Kashmir and Pakistan has caused some of the greatest conflicts on here. And there was me thinking this was an encyclopedia. Not sure what the best thing to do is with people like that as you can't change their view. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for readers to login and waste wiki resources just to point out obvious repeated PR acts by editors. Pointing-out such acts is not a personal attack from Wiki standards. Your editing approach for FA article is mostly leg-pulling type. Take time and understand the topic in depth before jumping into big-brother type conclusions. By a vagabond from a Multi User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It was just a thought that you could have logged in under your usual id and opposed my RfA. Leg-pulling and 'obvious repeated PR acts' are reasonable grounds to oppose, assuming you can justify them. It is usually more productive to take positive actions on your beliefs than to comment anonymously. Regards. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
After enjoying your new reward you may want do some soul-searching and revisit your recent roles in CM ( comments with pre-conceived/preset conclusions), KofM (random comments without even knowing full details) and other articles. Hope you will be more constructive and objective while retaining your new title. May be further discussion should go to your talk page. BTW: Wikipedia is not against anonymous constructive comments.76.212.2.204 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
F&F: I got your message and read your suggested improvements to the Atiyah article on its talk page. They all sound great to me. They also sound very serious and time-intensive (so that for instance, doing anything definitive by 4/22/09 seems overly optimistic). Is there some small part of what you propose that you think I could help you with? I am a research mathematician, but my specialties are in algebra/number theory/algebraic geometry, which gives me only sporadic glimpses of Atiyah's work. I have read (parts of, at least) his book on K-theory, so perhaps I could help out there. I do not feel qualified to write about index theorems, equivariant cohomology, or mathematical physics. Any suggestions? Plclark (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Plclark. Yes, I agree with everything you say. The two people, R.e.b. and Geometry guy, who responded on Talk:Michael Atiyah, say the same. So, I'm thinking now that it is probably best to let Michael Atiyah remain as is until someone writes a biography of Atiyah or until articles appear in History of Math journals about Atiyah's work.
I might draw on your expertise soon on a different topic though. A couple of years ago, I had worked a little on Indian mathematics, but then that article sort of got put on hold. Once I get a few current articles out of the way, I do plan to return to "Indian mathematics." Also, since Kim Plofker's new book (Princeton) has appeared, there will be more material to source from (although lack of available sources was not the problem on that page). So, in a couple of months time, I'll likely sound you out again. Thanks again for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping this FAC focused on the present and WP:WIAFA, please do not revert admin comments and refactoring at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore again. Discussion should focus on the current article and the criteria, not old article history, GA issues or opinions about other editors. In the interest of not extending and derailing a FAC-- which will only lead to a restart-- please stay on topic. You are welcome to enter a new Oppose under Moni's refactoring, without carrying forward old discussions of old issues not related to WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove content that is not relevant or unactionable, but why is my stating that the primary author is being disingenuous when he states that the article has been copy-edited by two people, Michael Devore and Finetooth, not relevant to the present discussion? Moni3 is the one who made a mistake. She reverted more than just the GA discussion that she mentioned in her edit summary. Is there a Wikirule that says "Do not revert "admin" refactoring if the admin has made an error?" Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! I am a bit frustrated with this FAC. The subject matter is not very accessible as it is, and DK's method of responding to comments (not inline) makes it hard to me to follow which of your points he is responding to. Your points are also difficult for me to understand since I know nothing about the topic (other than what I just read in the article). Could you do me a favor and post somewhere (here or my Talk page) a concise bulleted list of your concerns? Just a few sentences would suffice. I normally focus on the quality of prose, but your comments indicate I need to look at whether the prose accurately reflects the sources. --Laser brain(talk)22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for taking the time to type up that synopsis. It gives me some targeted areas to review so I can make an informed decision about the article. You're a gentleman and a scholar. --Laser brain(talk)15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
F&F, Can you please keep an eye on India (the article :) ) ? None of the regular editors (Nichalp, KH, Ragib et al) seem to be around and the article has seen undiscussed addition of 2 new sections, several poor images, lists of sportspeople etc. Hope you are doing well on/off-wiki. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I do not think at this point there is a need for check user so please build you case as suggested on "puppet investigations" and I'll have a look at the evidence, but as I could be seen as biased if I think there is a case to answer, I'll ask other admins to look in. Please remove the allegation from Talk:British India as it is not directly relevant to that page and if it remains there it will not be conducive to consensus editing in the future. There was a tag team of sock puppets working on Bosnian Genocide for many months. Guess what as soon as they left the other editors were able to reach a compromise we could have reached months earlier. --PBS (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at your evidence of abuse, then made my graph. It looked suggestive, so I ran a checkuser. They appear to be socks. Please go to WP:RFCU to ask for an independent checkuser to look into it. Feel free to cite my graph too. I have no opinion on what should be done with these accounts. Regards. Cool HandLuke16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I agree (with PBS). I've zero experience with sock puppets though, I did desultorily follow the User:Kristen Eriksen thing which happened while my RfA was in progress. While that case was huge in the scale and number of sock puppets, there are some similarities (mainly the asynchronous editing) with the editing habits of these two editors. You may want to look at some of the discussion there for guidance in building a case. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 16:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I did wonder a little about UZK, a bit convenient (the name was odd). But it all seemed so plausible. How the heck do they manage to keep the different personas apart amazes me! Anyway, I guess it is clear that all the discussion on the British India page has been with socks, so should probably revert to some early version and work from that. Perhaps this? --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi F&f. I give up re this article. I made the mistake of engaging with User:Hindutashravi and am now uncomfortable with the idea of my protecting the article, even though I think it is the only thing to do. Could you get some other admin involved? I'll gladly add my support to any specific recommendation that you make. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Will ask Saravask. Wikipedia is a strange place. You get rid of one nut job, in their place several others rise. Seems like an old horror movie. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Lucy
Hey, I just wanted to make sure there are no hard feeling between us; FAC can be a stressful place at time, and very much time. Myself and Liz will chip away at the prose over the week and coming weekend and work through it in detail. When we are done I might ping you to revisit, and hopefuly we can resolve this without to much, or better, any hassel. Talk later. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Good advice you left on Liz's page, Fowler. I think thats what we'll do (or I will at least ;) - work for a few more weeks -or however long it takes- on the prose re the type of issues raised in the FAC. It can be FA, its just going to take a bit longer that expected, but ah so what - we'll get there. Taking the last round in perspective; the worst that happened was we came out of it with a vastly improved lead ;). Anyway, thanks for sticking with this, and for your goods words last night. Talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to separate the grey grammar areas and objections from other actions that are not grey. Fowler&fowler, this comment from the FAC for The Lucy poems is not ok. There is no hardball in FAC. Raise your objections and let them be answered. I can understand why Ottava Rima thinks you are after him in light of this comment. Once you insult an nominator and vow to, what I can only assume is a threat or promise via "play hardball" to make the FAC as difficult as possible, we have this awful can of worms. It suggests you do not have an article's best interest at heart.
I'm trying to give you both a fair showing in order to determine if these are necessary changes that need to be made, or if this is a battle between egos. Quite frankly, I think it's a little of both. However, that comment does not help your cause. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a small comment here: it's Ottava Rima, not Octavo Rima. I am sure that he would appreciate being referred to by his proper name. Risker (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fowler, I said the same thing to Ottava a few hours ago, and I'll say it to you now as well; forget about it, disengage, its just not worth it. The rift is too deep at this stage, neither of ye can win, and frankly does it really matter? Ye clash, but thats life, sadly. If I was to be frank I see fault on both sides, but nothing that would cause me to get too upset or excited; I still have respect for both of ye. You've registered an oppose on the SJ FAC? Fine, let it stand as is; its early days for the candidacy yet, lets see what others say. Your never going to convince Ottava, he's never going to convince you. Grand so, move on. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm borded of this already; but if you feel the need to continue the spat; let my page be the venue. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad, and you will of course be welcome whenever the 2nd Lucy FAC happens. Myself and Liz will respond to you then, as you requested before Ottava and yourself should probably stay away from each other ;). Hope the stressomoter is not too high and later. Ceoil (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
They have not condescended to notice the remark, in part, because they are all asleep. They have a theory that Lucy was really five different cats, who W. never managed to domesticate. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5 cats? Nothing. The way my life is going these days, reckon by the time I'm 50, I'll have several dozen cats, wild eyes and a rickity stoop, and will be refered to by the local children as "auld crackity fecking Ceoil". Well, bugger! Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:) Yeah. I don't think I'd make a very good publishing scout (or whatever is the word for those people) for Knopf. Most manuscripts would be returned to the authors with exhortation to not give up their day job. And the publishing house would soon be out of business. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Resp to FAC cmt
Your post at WT:FAC: I'm afraid I'm not running the experiment for my own gratification, but rather to provide an opportunity for these issues to be thrashed out. As for my point, what is it? What is my hypothesis that you so glibly characterize as "psuedo-scientific?" I'm just generating the data. Again, I don't have any particular focus on Ottava Rima. The detailed remarks I have made on his FAC are no different in their level of detail from the ones I have made on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Small-Scale_Experimental_Machine (and on the article's talk page). The only difference is in the content of my remarks; in the former they mostly concern syntax and diction and in the latter, incomplete explanations and poor organization. The main difference is in the response. Whereas Malleus F. and I are making progress and the article is already much better, Ottava R. and I clearly are not. I have left an open invitation to any Wikipedian other than Ottava R. to point to any excesses in my reviewer's remarks. So far, no one has taken up the challenge, including you, Moni3. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
To avoid de-railing the thread further, I'm responding here. I've found one objectionable statement in your comments, though I admit I don't pore over them. I've already posted my objection to it on your talk page. Is this the challenge you were commenting on? --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No. I have already replied to your objection (see here and scroll to the bottom). I meant that, in my view, none the new posts I have made either on the Samuel Johnson's early life FAC or the Manchester machine FAC are either excessive or malicious. I was challenging people to find evidence in them to contradict that. BTW, I did take your comments on your talk page to heart (or at least mulled over them). True, I didn't show exemplary behavior earlier, but I am making an effort now to be both civil and informative. (See, for example, here.) Also, I'm trying not to get into an arguments with OR (since, as is obvious, they lead nowhere). However, I would like to complete making my comments on the article, so that—FA'd or not—it has a record of my critique. OR is no longer saying (btw) that I'm stalking him, only that I'm utterly wrong or that my points are all absurd. This is exactly how he had reacted after I made my first post to the Lucy FAC, when I hadn't the foggiest who he was. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
PS I am someone who is a detail-oriented reviewer. There are some people who like to review dozens of FAs every week; I, on the other hand, would prefer to critique only a handful. However, my comments are detailed, and, if I find mistakes in every line, my comments might involve every line. I am learning (slowly) to not get involved in arguments over my points. If the nominator refuses to cooperate, I want to be able to gracefully move on. However, I do want to continue making my comments on the rest of the article. I guess I want to ensure that my continuing to do so should not be seen as an example of treating Wikipedia as a battle-ground. In other words, arguing about the same point makes a battle-ground; moving on to critiquing the next section (and the next) does not. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly to be commended for the attention to detail. I don't know why sometimes I can review one FA a day for weeks, and then I fall completely apart and can't seem to read a paragraph without drifting away to amuse myself with something shiny. I am in such a state right now, overcome with guilt.
With as much time and effort that goes into writing the articles that appear at FAC not only is it understandable that people are very invested in nominating and reviewing articles, but I'm surprised that knock-down drag-out fights don't happen more often. I appreciate that you're working on letting your comments stand. It takes a quiet strength to say what you think, say it graciously, and let your comments speak for their own accuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking. I dont have a beef with the substance of your argument, as I havn't read the article fully - I can work with both you and Ottava, and dont want to get caught caught in the middle. But Modernist I consider a close friend on wiki, we've taken 5 articles through FAC together, and if I see him being dissed I see red. I think I know him/her quite well by now, and though an editor maybe of few words at times, from long experience I know s/he is thoughtful and considered, I would say more than most. We all have differnet interputations of the criteria, and Modernist happens to be more content and substance orientated that stylistic (ie prose and MOS), though a fine copy editor when it comes to it.
Phew, that was a mouthful. I wanted to ask you anyway what you think about adding that image over there right to the Lucy page. We'd need more context, but its an interesting blip, well found. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:) "The lost what" is funny! Our teenager prefers "Don't be hatin'" I've now started using it on him, when he bitches about someone. Sure, please use the image(s). It's funny, I pulled out the GT after I woke up with a start around 2:30 last night. One of our cats, who had gone to the local animal hospital on Wednesday to be spayed, who had overnighted there Wednesday night, and who yesterday morning bolted literally out of the vet's hands while he was examining her, was still missing when I went to bed, and my sleep had been disturbed. It turned out, she had jumped up on one of the "hanging" rafters, run along one of them and fallen behind the wall (i.e. in the narrow space between the walls). She was finally located this morning; her sutures had come undone and she had rampant infections and some herniation. They had to do another surgery and she is now on three antibiotics and pain killers, still not quite out of the woods. So, GT helped with my anxiety in some way. Its quite likely too that Modernist caught some flak from my implosion. Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
F&F, I hope all is calm now, as I do get upset when you are embroiled in one of this things beyond my capabilities. You are the most intriguing intellect on the wiki, whether you live in Mumbai or Chicago (neither of which had occurred to me). In fact, I might have figured Canada or even the UK, although you do not use British English, do you? I have great respect for you, your sensibility and your kindness, wherever you are located. From a long time ago, I have noticed! Your friend, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattisse, for the nice compliment! Yeah, all that CU'ing is behind us. I hope. Time for me to focus on mainspace articles. :) That History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) article that I've been writing for three months (or rather, that I wrote up in one afternoon, but since have been not writing for three months) needs my attention. Once done, I'd like to get inputs from you, Septer* (that's as much of his name as I can spell before first coffee), and RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Cats can be right little b**t**ds, but worth it, overall surely.
We can't just insert the pic unexpained; do you have more background as to why he went about changing the titles. Its interesting to say the least, I sure it was covered in secondary sources. Anyway, I'm sure modernist will read the above and understand how it goes. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pic. Beautiful cats! Our own is doing a little better. We saw her yesterday. Animals have the same saline/antibiotic/morphine drips (with digital interface!) as humans do, only theirs is slightly smaller (at least for cats and dogs). Their hospital beds, of course, are large cages (large from the perspective of a cat, that is). Her neighbor is a dog who was hit by a car and had broken his pelvis.
As for the Golden Treasury, let me look around in the lit. Even though the GT is (from a 21st C perspective) a stultified collection of stilted verse, it was popular in its day, so I'm hoping there will be some clues here and there. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so sorry to hear about your kitty - I hope she is doing better! One of my own boys had to spend some time at the hospital recently too. Complications from extensive dental surgery, exacerbated by not eating for nearly a week while drinking as little as possible. He lost nearly a pound and a half in that time, but he is doing better now. Here he is just after the surgery.
Please forgive me for not having a proper response for you yet over at the Lucy talkpage. My life is a bit busier than usual this week, and I haven't had a chance yet to pick up the book you mentioned on the Lucy page, though I do have a couple of reviews on it. I see no reason not to add it to the bibliography, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks for the note! Yes, she is doing much better. Sorry to hear about Mishka (who seems to like books!). Hope he is doing better now. He'll be a happy cat once he has recovered. One of our older cats had two teeth extracted about a month ago. Earlier, for almost a year, he had been losing interest in life around him. But, in retrospect, he was probably in a lot of pain, which (unlike most humans) he bore silently and with great grace. He has now returned to rolling on his back, chasing bottle caps and ice cubes, and running up and down the house after he uses the kitty litter.
No problem about the article. I very much do understand interferences from real life. I will try to add something there myself and then look forward to feedback from you, Ceoil, Awedewit and others. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it! Mishka too is doing much better, though he has abandoned the books in favour of sofas and comfy laps. He had to have six teeth out, got a stomach bug, and wound up needing three different meds and subcutaneous fluids. All as a result of what I thought would be a routine vet visit. Pretty crazy. Anyway, he's completely recovered now, and I've noticed some of the same improvements you described in your own cat. He really does seem to be enjoying life more: he's much livelier and more active. Got him some catnip the other day... very happy kitteh. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, pets often have to wait for routine vet visits to have their problems attended to. They will often put up with a lot of pain without showing any overt signs of their affliction, and cats especially so (perhaps because they are not pack animals?). I'm glad that the outcome for both of us was good.
As for Lucy, I will give it the once over this week and square away the Golden Treasury stuff. You should probably think about renominating it for FA soon (a week or two's time) ... Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandal Warning
Just to give you a heads up Professor, we have a vandal jumping around attacking articles.
IP address: 99.228.164.238
Noticed you have an interest in Princely States. Anyone in particular?
Thanks Gorkhali. Will look at the problem. I have an interest in Colonial India (and, through it, in Princely States). No one in particular; I have, though, worked most on Kashmir and Mysore. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
. -Nvineeth (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, also he has Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk · contribs) and two others... what were they called? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
