User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 13

A favour?
Hello! I was looking for someone to help me and I found your name here, so I concluded that you know something about English grammar (this being a huge understatement, I hope :)). I significantly expanded the article Maria Theresa of Austria. Now I need someone to go through the article and see how bad the grammar is. I'm sure it is not good enough, as I'm a 15-year-old who is not a native speaker of English. If you don't have time (I suppose you don't), could you direct me somewhere? Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I likely won't have the time myself, but I will take a look at the article in the next few days and suggest someone who might be able to help you.  Very impressive for a 15-year-old!  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent things
No hard feelings, I hope. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No not at all. :) I'm lucky that I have Wiki-friends who look out for me.  As you can tell, I took your advice.  (And forgot to thank you!)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of advice, I found you meta discussion a few months back on the way FAC articles tend to be narrow (say, paintings rather than painters) a bit of a wake up call. I've recitified by working on a Goya series (small steps he he), while also helping to bring Van Gogh's bio towards FAC. You had a very strong argument, and what you brought attention to is for sure a problem; I hope your voice wasn't lost. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Great, look forward to seeing Van Gogh on FAC review!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when at FAC, it would be good to engage with you again. I would think a high traffic article like that would need to be just so on prose, so likely I'll annoy you into commenting when the times comes. Sorry, but I will. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will be delighted!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain
I am going to need further feedback to resolve your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea
Hi Fowler, just a note to say thanks for your support and very kind words, which cheered me up considerably. Yes, the writing was a labour of love. :) The work feels very much worthwhile so long as someone has enjoyed reading it, so thank you. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I also meant to say that I'll be incorporating some of your suggestions into the text. I've read them, but haven't looked closely at the bits of text you referred to, but I'll be doing that over the next day or two. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure how I managed to miss this. You are very welcome.  The pleasure was mine!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo
Hi Fowler. I'm currently editing Battle of the Alamo to address some of the points that you made. It appears that I've confused you on the nature of Texian vs Texas settler vs US adventurer and I haven't been able to craft a nice sentence to explain this yet. I thought if I explained it to you in a wordy manner you might be able to help me fit it in the article. Basically, I used "Texas settler" to mean a person/family who had lived in Texas prior to the outbreak of the revolution in Oct 1835 (this group can be further subdivided into "Anglos" and "Tejanos"). "Adventurer from the US" (a term used in many of the sources) refers to people who arrived in Texas between Oct 1835 and April 1836. "Texian" lumps all of these together. I was very careful in which term I used where but I think I was a bit too subtle. I'd appreciate any advice you can give in how I can make this more clear in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Thank you very much for your attention to detail. I feel like I got off easy, though ;)  I've addressed the majority of your concerns; in a few cases (such as the cases I mentioned above), I felt that your suggested wording would slightly distort the meaning of the sentence or I didn't really see the need for the change (like future past - maybe some of the kiddos will(re)learn proper grammar).  I very much appreciate your help; I think the little word tweaks have helped the article to become more clear. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very welcome! Just got back after a busy day.  Have to do the alt text in my FAC first, which sounds like it could be fun, were it not for the many many images.  Will reply at length soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be a hectic day today! Will read the relevant sections of your article again tomorrow, then reply here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hi Karanacs, Not sure now exactly what I was confused about (for one I didn't realize that Texas settlers included Tejanos), but I was also vicariously confused for the average reader.
 * So, here is your sentence, "Santa Anna's perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texas settlers and adventurers from the United States to join the Texian Army."
 * Could you say, "Santa Anna's perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians, both older Texas settlers and newer adventurers from the United States, to join the Texian Army" or something along those lines?

As for my suggestions, yes, I completely understand. I don't expect people to address all my concerns, indeed even any of my concerns, since the process of formulating the right sentence is complex and delicate. I am also aware that in the few minutes I have to devote to the comments, I can easily misinterpret what is being said. Thanks for mentioning it! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Glad to see you back! Did you notice that an editor put Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore up for Good article nomination? (I don't think it is an editor who has actually edited the article. The last Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/archive1 was negative, with many problems pointed out.) Also, I will read History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760). Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Great.  Look forward to your feedback!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been making a few small changes, hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert. Some of them were made when I was mysteriously logged out, so if you see a suspcious IP, that is probably me. Two comments. First, I think you have too many pictures and maps. They overlay the references and are distracting. Second, I have reservations about the article referring to itself, i.e. that it is the first of three parts, and statements like "That, however, would happen after the period covered in this article." I may be alone in this reservation. Also, should not the spelling be British? Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply at length later. I have to do the alt text first.  Your points are all good!  Let me mull them over.  Probably the US spelling is best, since that's what I use.  I may have made an attempt to use British spelling and then got distracted.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mattisse, Will you mind copying your two comments on the FAC review page? Another person has made comments about Wikification and images; it will help me to have all the comments in one place.  Thanks!  (I'm a little burnt out with the alt text.  23 images!)  Will come back to this in a few hours.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics
First of all, don't make the ridiculous assertion that only supposedly 'peer reviewed' sources should be cited. Aside from the obvious criticisms of the peer review process itself, there are many valid sources that have merit to be cited, both from the past as well as now. 'Peer review' are not magic words that validate anything. Peer review is much more valid in some fields than others. Don't oversimplify.

Secondly, it is widely accepted by almost all historians that the decimal system arose in India. Whether you want to say 'evolved over time' or invented is a subject of debate. But the fact that this process occurred in India is not in dispute. And citing one reference by a single historian does not change this argument.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC follow-up
Hi Fowler. Have you had a chance to follow-up at Fac? I wondered if your oppose still stands. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did forget about it. :) Will comment later today.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that helped me close the nomination. Karanacs (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Christine (1973)/archive1
Hi, it's been a while since you've commented here and I was wondering if your oppose still stands. I've checked over all forty of the links given and none had any additional information. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the delay, I'm a little busy today, but I will check the sources tomorrow and comment again.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Adviser/mentor
Hi,

Are you able to resume your post as one of my advisers/mentors, or are you too busy and lack time?

There was an incident which lead to the setting up of a monitoring page for my behavior: User:Mattisse/Monitoring and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring. Your name was left off the list of advisers/mentors, as at the time you had not actively edited for some months.

However, if you are willing, I would be happy to add your name back to the list of advisers/mentors. Your presence would be welcome. If you are too busy, I will certainly understand that it would not be feasible for you to take on this extra, and possibly unrewarding, task.

Wonderful to have you back editing!

Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mattisse, I have to run to a meeting. Will mull it over and reply later today.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply tonight. Sorry for the delay!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurry whatsoever. Nothing much happening at the moment. (Your article is looking great!) Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just want to get this (FAC writing) monkey off my back first. Will reply soon though.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glimmer
I looked up Sanjay Subrahmanyam on the web, and I am getting a glimmer of what the controversy regarding the history of India is about. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are, and have been, various schools. SS, though, has done a good job of maintaining his independence.  I think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Favor
Could you talk a look at this article and tell me that I'm imagining that the whole thing is a cooked up piece of fringe theories and original research? A sane look at the quality of research would help put me out of my confused misery! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do as soon as I have the Mysore and Coorg writing finished. Another day or two.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did make some comments on the talk page. Mainly, I posted a message on the talk pages of the WikiPortals in Sociology, Discrimination, and Ethnic Groups.  Part of the problem with the article is that it is not under any portal umbrella.  Hopefully one of those portal folks will reply.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags at Kingdom of Mysore
Hello Fowler&fowler, I'm the one who had removed the tags at the top of the page. I apologise if removing it without discussion seemed sneaky, but it seemed to be one of those articles that warring editors stick tags on that stay indefinitely. I tried to look at the talk page to see what the history was, but I could not understand what the major issues were either, and it seemed to be a dead issue with no recent discussion. So I removed them, with what you called an "unencyclopedic" edit summary. :-) What would it take to get rid of the tags now? Should they stay there forever, given that the discussion seems to have stagnated? At least, could we have a fresh summary of the points of dispute, either near the tags or in the talk page, so that casual readers (like me) aren't left wondering what the problems are? Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! Well, the page has numerous problems.  Here is a short list:
 * The name of the page is problematic. All princely states are referred to as "* State," and not "Kingdom of *."  It is true that Mysore had a stretch of independent life before it accepted British suzerainty, but so did most others; in fact, some, as I point out somewhere on the page's talk page, are older than Mysore.  The historiography, for the most part, other than the post-1947-Karnataka-nationalistic-kind, doesn't refer to it as a "kingdom" either.  For example, there is no reason why Mysore should be Kingdom of Mysore and Hyderabad Hyderabad State.
 * For each main period of Mysore's history, 1610–1760, 1761–1799, and 1800–1947, the sources used are abominable. They are mostly one or two Karnataka historians (one of a Hindu nationalistic variety mostly unavailable in libraries, the other a Bangalore university Music Department dissertation published locally also unavailable in any library) do a magnificent job of restoring the Wodeyars, the "rulers" who are generally ignored mainstream histories.  After the authors were taken to task for that, they grudgingly made a few changes, (like including the names of Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan in the list of rulers) but nowhere near enough.
 * In the end, we (the reviewers) decided that I would write the parent article for each period of Mysore's history, and once those articles were ready, we would amend the main article accordingly and the tags would stay on until then. The first part of the series Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) is now in FAC review.  Progress would have been faster had I not had a series of family emergencies all summer.  In fact, you could help out by reviewing the article on the FAC review page.  Thanks!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I'd have thought that "kingdom" or not would be a minor issue. AFAIK, the word generally used in Kannada for either "kingdom" or "state" is the same, rajya. (Doesn't "princely state" refer only to the most recent time, under British rule?) Having looked at the political history article (which I'll read more carefully and review/edit as appropriate), it is not surprising that the Wodeyars would be less prominent in outside histories, since it seems they kept a low profile politically and there's less of the usual mess of wars and money and power to write about. This does not necessarily mean that Karnataka historians are unreliable. :-) The Wodeyars did have a nontrivial cultural influence that lasts to this day, especially in present-day Mysore city (and esp. during Dasara, etc.). Anyway, is the problem mainly with the "History" section of the article? In that case we could move the tags in. It's a pity, because the article reads well. I'm still unconvinced that the tags are not about conflict between Wikipedia editors, but nevermind. :-) It seems an unfortunate fact that to some extent, it's conflict that drives Wikipedia (and some from Wikipedia :p). Shreevatsa (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the name is not a minor issue. Hyderabad is almost as old as Mysore; Jaipur, Bikaner and Kashmir are much older.  We simply follow the historiographical tradition.  They are all called states.
 * The two historians I mentioned are unreliable simply because they have not been cited by anyone else. Anyone can get a book published, but it has to be reviewed in journals or cited in the scholarly literature before it becomes a reliable source.
 * The history section is more than half the article and takes up much of the lead. The tags belong at the top of the article.  Besides, the same issues of synthesis, plague other sections.  See for example, remarks of user:Laser brain and user:RegentsPark at the end of the FAC review of Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore
 * The dispute is about synthesizing history using unreliable revisionist sources. It has nothing to do with personal conflict.  See for example, RegentsPark's comments here.  Infact, I am not the only one who objected to the article.  If you look at Kingdom of Mysore's talk page, you'll see that in addition to me, user:RegentsPark, user:Mattisse, user:Docku, and Septentrionalis, all objected to various parts of the article.  Perhaps discussing it with RegentsPark might be the best thing.  I'll go along with whatever decision he comes to, but you might want to check with the others too.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the usual Kannada name for the entity is ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಂಸ್ಥಾನ (maisūru saṃsthāna), not "rajya". I've added it to the article - I have no idea why it wasn't there all along. -- Arvind (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

US Roads Barnstar

 * Thanks! This a great honor!  My first Roads barnstar!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Goya
Fowler, despiter the argy-bargy of the last few days, I have a favour I want to ask. I would like to nom The Disasters of War for FA, and I'd like to know that you will comment. (Famous last words) I think the prose are fairly ok, but I'm open to suggestions. You would be very welcome at the FAC, and you can be as penetrating as you wish; as is your habit! I cant think of a better reviewer to go up against. Ceoil (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look at it. It will be a few days before I can get to it though.  Will that be OK?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS The music was great!  I'm much restored.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take youe time, man. I'm glad you like the tune. Ceoil (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
For the FA for Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), richly deserved and carried out in an exemplary manner by you. I especially enjoyed it as it cleared up many holes left in the history of other empires of the area. Your account was plausible and, thankfully without  the now expected puffery. Very refreshing. You did a great job. Of course, you know that I am a big fan of your intellect and clarity of writing style. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mattisse! I couldn't have done it without your help. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Do you still have the British spell check? Is is it Wikipedia software or do you have to copy the article into another editor (such as Microsoft Word)?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats! A great example of hard work and focus that I should somehow convey to my kids (and to myself)! Of course, you got lucky - if I had helped, it would have taken ten times as long :-). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks RP! Your feedback and support in the early stages was extremely helpful.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My spell check is in my browser so I don't have to copy anything. — mattisse (Talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. In that case, I wonder if you could (at your convenience) run the spell check on the Mysore and Coorg article? No hurry.  Whenever you can get to it.  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * good job. sorry i couldnt be of any help. just one suggestion, may be you have already done that. start a redirect page by a more familiar name by which the article will likely be searched for by average readers and additionally add links in all relevant karnataka history pages. my suggestion would be to create a dab page for all mysore and coorg history related articles which could be redirected from simple queries such as Mysore History and Coorg History. -- Car Tick  16:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The dab pages is a good idea.  Will do.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, F&f! I am usually wary of learning "history" from wiki-articles (even FAs), but knowing that you oversaw this one, I look forward to reading it and filling some holes in my knowledge-base. One state + 2 centuries down, how many to go ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abecedare! :) Yes, these detailed histories do take time. One of these days I'll have to make the time for the periods 1761–1799 and 1800–1947 ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me add my congrats as well. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks MP! Hopefully I'll get to some East India Company-related articles soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And from me as well. I'm sorry I did not comment on the FAC - life is entirely too hectic at present, and I didn't see your note to me until this evening. I don't think I could've added very much to the article, which is truly excellent. -- Arvind (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems at all, Arvind. Thanks!  Great to hear from you.  Yeah, I've had a few real-life interruptions too lately.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Irony
Would you consider a refactor? Durova 326 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "an" and have corrected.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, well that makes it a little less close to a gratuitous personal attack. Yes, I looked back from the case and wondered Do I state it this way?  It'll be ironic to some people, off-putting to others, but it'll also provoke reflection.  If you'd like to discuss, let's discuss.  Your criticism is merited.  Is there anything in mine that forms a basis for dialog?  Durova 326 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're being too oblique in your statement and responses. If you think a three month ban is merited, then you should say so clearly and provide your reasons.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't kept tabs on this particular situation well enough to be sure. Didn't want to call out an uninvolved editor by name on the clarification request, but if you've been following the context the example being referred to is ScienceApologist.  I was his mentor.  And I didn't object to a short three month ban because it looked very much at the time as if he were on a trajectory that would end in a much longer ban, unless something intervened.  Empirically, that worked.  On a wikiphilosophical level you and I probably agree that it's better to retain productive content editors.  The challenge comes when one of those productive content editors consistently crosses boundaries.  Do you have a better solution?  Do you disagree that things have reached that impasse?  Seriously, I'm on the fence about this and willing to be persuaded.  As a website we're very weak at this sort of thing.  Durova 326 00:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know enough about the situation. I think, though, that Carcharoth's idea of a mentor's report is a good one and will help clarify things for everyone.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will sleep on it and perhaps withdraw or modify the clarification statement tomorrow. Durova 326 03:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for your willingness to reconsider.  Good night!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! How are you? I've recently expanded the article on V. S. Srinivasa Sastri and feel that it could be a potential GA. I was able to add some very good, reliable sources. However, I feel it needs some copy-editing and more photographs. Since, I might not be able to frequent the net until the first week of November, I request you to handle this article and help me by improving it. Bye. tc. - The Enforcer Office of the secret service 12:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will look at it. Glad to see you are around.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tripadi
Hi, I saw you created Tripadi. You appear to know great deal. Please contribute to Kannada meter (poetry). There are many meters that do not have articles yet. I am working on them. Thanks. ~rAGU (talk)
 * Hi there! I actually know very little.  For one, I don't know the language at all.  I had acquired whatever knowledge I had (when I wrote the article) from the sources.  I will, however, look at that page sometime soon.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Indian history
Hi Fowler&fowler, I happened on Talk:Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) where you lament the lack of sources for that period, & was wondering if you were aware of the Hakluyt Society series of explorer reports? I've been using them for my Ethiopia-related articles, where they've proven useful, & I know of one volume which includes material on India circa 1750. I am also aware that they can be considered primary sources, but IMHO the careful use of a contemporary account can often fill an otherwise insatiable void. -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't aware of the society. I will take a look at the page soon.  (And their webpage as well.)  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My perspective
Hi Fowler, I saw the discussion on Sandy's talk page but thought it might be best to respond to you here. I agree that you seem to have an easier time with some nominators than others, and since I was listed as an example I thought I'd offer my perspective on reviewing. Feel free to totally disregard, as this is just my opinion :) I have been impressed with many of your reviews, and I am further impressed that you are willing to listen to feedback and modify some of your behaviors. Thank you :) Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obviously human nature that nominators will look more kindly on you if you support their article. Some nominators take opposition to the article very personally; they have spent a lot of time and effort and are very invested in the results.  Others are more dispassionate/have much thicker skins and may take the criticism better. Nominators who are also frequent FAC reviewers generally take criticism more in stride because we dish out enough of it. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell which camp the nominator falls in until a reviewer has (hopefully unintentionally) offended them.
 * As a reviewer, I think it's incredibly important to be sensitive, and not to personalize any nominator comments, however great the temptation.
 * This means avoiding hyperbole (which you are occasionally prone to when you are trying to make a point).
 * Don't provide a laundry list of every single potential issue with the prose (this makes some nominators feel attacked; others prefer having a task list), although I have noticed and been grateful that you've been posting most of that at article talk pages - much easier for me as a delegate!
 * Unless there is no possible hope of good faith (rare), never question a nominator's commitment to the article, denigrate the efforts they've already put into it, or question their motives. There's almost always a way to frame comments so as to acknowledge and appreciate that a great deal of work has been done, but also push for improvements. Calling editors lazy/childish/ignorant/etc is the perfect way to offend them and make them stop listening to you at all.  Making fun of the article will have the same effect (as I found out in response to a comment I made about a particularly...interesting...turn of phrase formerly in the Catholic Church article).
 * Don't question a reviewer's motives. It is okay to post a neutral comment below another reviewer's comments to point out that they are members of the wikiproject, or have worked on the article, or to ask for clarification of supports.  If you think there is a corruption/cabal issue, it can be taken to the FAC talk page or mine or Sandy's.  For the most part, Sandy and I are aware of who is friendly with whom, who is feuding, etc. and we can take that into account.
 * In cases like the Tropical Storm Christine FAC it is always best to bring up your points about the general class of articles at WT:FAC than on the individual FAC; Sandy and I are bound by overall consensus, and for something like this it really has to come from a wider discussion
 * I also think Juliancolton had a point - the tone of your posts can be quite different when you interact with some editors (like me) rather than editors, possibly because some of us are more apt to take your advice? or are more polite about not doing so?  or generally have a thicker skin? or don't work on literature articles?


 * Thanks Karanacs. I have read your post a few times and am taking the advice to heart.  Will try to make a renewed attempt to be fair and sensitive in my comments.  Thanks for taking the time to write a carefully thought through analysis!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fowler. I have seen a difference in your recent reviews (and I am, of course, very happy with the one you gave me!).  Reviewing is hard work - much harder than many nominators understand.  I do appreciate your efforts very much. Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, reviewing can be hard work, if it is done right. Btw, I just realized that it was Sandy Georgia who made the observation you attribute above to Julian Colton.  Anyway, I am mulling over that as well.  Thanks again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Akbar the Great
There is a budding content dispute at this page, and you may be in a good position to comment on the subject and the sources. The article itself is long, but pretty unbalanced in my view. Not even sure why it is at Akbar the Great, instead of at Akbar - but the naming issue itself is minor and can be dealt with later. Can you take a look ? PS: RP and I have been talking about you behind your back. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Abecedare, I'll look at it later this weekend.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Indian history publishing quality
You might like to look at WP:RS/N as its a history question about sourcing in relation to the subcontinent, and Wikipedia could value your input here. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Fifelfoo, I did look at it and made a brief comment.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick review?
Hi, Fowler; in response to your concerns regarding tropical cyclone FA nominations, I've rewritten and expanded an article that serves as a list of several storms. It's at GA now, and it needs a bit of polishing yet, but I'd like to get it featured eventually. Could you take a look if you have time? Thanks! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look at it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Cheetahs nawab oudh1844.jpg
File:Cheetahs nawab oudh1844.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Cheetahs nawab oudh1844.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image 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:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Attendant indian camp1844.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Attendant indian camp1844.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
Are your user subpages, in particular this one, licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL? I'm planning to expand and improve the article on the Indian independence movement. Among other things, the article needs sourcing - which I plan to incorporate into it from a variety of literature, and if your user subpages are freely licensed, I'd like to use content from them as well. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid they are not for general use. If you want to replace the current article with my text and then expand it, I would be willing, but not otherwise.  Mainly, I object to the inclusion of the Revolt of 1857 in the independence movement and also the prominence given to the revolutionaries in the current article.  In my view, the contribution of the revolutionaries and Bose was minimal.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not orphaned any more. Have removed deletion tag.  Thanks for informing me!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Cheers,  Zoo Fari  21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikkim
Hi!Fowler&fowler,

I have keenly followed your debate on Kannada language related articles in the past year (2008). As I was searching for some pictures of Sikkim to include in my article on Architecture of Sikkim (still in a draft stage), I came across a picture of the Queen of Sikkim posted by you. Do you have any pictures of of the palace, the monastery and the hill top Chorten at Gangtok, which could be uploaded to wikicommons? Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'll check and post something here soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit revert
I disagree with your revert. Most people don't read complete articles - they just read the sections of interest. India's large biodiversity is not just due to the fact that it belongs to Indo-Malayan region but also the fact it has a vast diversity of ecoregions. This is not obvious or well-known to people from abroad. I have met foreigners who people who have mentioned that it was a surprise to them that India had such a wide variety of fauna and flora. AshLin (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your concerns on the Talk:India page. An FA requires group discussion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for contentious issues, not for highlighting simple facts. AshLin (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is contentious. I am disputing it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping my irritation at being reverted aside, I take your point. Since this particular edit is IMHO not "vital" to the article but only making it more explicit, I stand down. Henceforth for India, I'll put up proposed changes at the talk page for concurrance first. India is in good shape and definitely deserves to be kept so! AshLin (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Apologies for being brusque; I was strapped for time.  Yes, the India page has been worked on for many years, and even though it is not optimally distilled, there is a general impression out there that it is.  So additions are generally challenged, unless they are in response to obvious mistakes such as those of grammar.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally
I thought your comments on OR's talkpage were timely, insightful and appropriate. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I had to do it all over again, I would stay away from making any comments.  Never having been on that page, I was shocked by what appeared (to me at least) to be endless enabling of one editor's acting out.   Frankly, I found OR's posts to be disturbed (psychologically) and to an extent I feel for the man.  The situation, in my view,  requires helpful intervention, not enabling.  But, perhaps that is not possible on Wikipedia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper and Lower Table Rock
Great! Congratulations! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Feedback ...
... regarding your arbitration evidence, from someone who has no problem believing the worst about Ottava: Sorry for being a bit direct, but it's not convincing and I believe the case would be stronger without it. It seems that one needs to sleep over this kind of contribution before making it, and I guess you have yet to do that.

It appears your main argument is that he uses ungrammatical English even in mainspace; but then you would need to prove it with mainspace edits. For some editors talkspace contributions are like spoken language: You start a sentence in one way and continue it in another. (A much more convincing example would have been the diff of where he defended a blatantly ungrammatical sentence as "hypercorrect", but even that wouldn't really be appropriate.) Also, the parenthetical remark after your 2nd example is misleading since the obvious referent of "that sentence" is "'Persia' is slightly outdated", which was in fact written originally by Folantin. I thought you were making some subtle point there and tracked down where Folantin said it. But perhaps you meant OR's grammar ("at least not do it")? That was so inappropriate that I didn't even consider the possibility. Your argument about paraphrasing also doesn't convince me, since you seem to be unusually pedantic in the FAC you linked to. Altogether, instead of proving there is a problem you are asserting it, not without undermining your own credibility.

I can't explain it well, but the second section looks even weaker to me. Hans Adler 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the diffs are not the best. I added them in a hurry, but I'm pretty sure about the overall tenor of my remarks.  I'm happy to remove the diffs.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, btw, for your feedback!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Your experience in articles relating to British history and colonialism prompt me to ask for a review of Amazing Grace, since a third of the article deals with John Newton's life. I rewrote and posted the article yesterday. There is a peer review here. I appreciate anything you can suggest to improve it. I would like to take it to FA. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Moni, will take a look in the next few days.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC revisit
F&f, would you be able to revisit your oppose at Featured article candidates/1997 Qayen earthquake/archive1? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this somehow! I thought I had left a second review Friday morning or was it Saturday?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles banner
Some Suggested text for a RfC on the banner. --Natet/c 13:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:BritishIndia1947a.jpg
Hi, may I ask you to transfer this file to Commons? We need it at polish wiki. Thx in advance. Masur (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC) ps. or give me essential licensing info and I can do it myself.

Islamic Invasion of Kerala
Can you take a look at the discussion on this and other recently created articles on my talk page ? Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All the four articles turned out to be copyvio from this. So ignore my earlier request - one less item on your todo list once you return! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu
I have nominated this article for peer-review. your comments and contributions will be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Car Tick  04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your help
Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Thanks.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 13:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Many thanks for taking the trouble to review this article. I know you have a reputation as an in depth reviewer so it was almost more thrilling to get a "support" from F&F than to get the star! I know I am somewhat prosily challenged as it were but I kept thinking, it can't be that bad if F&F thinks it's goodenough. Fainites barley scribs 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2 images for deletion
I have listed 2 images uploaded by you for speedy deletion, File:Indian freedom pie chart.jpg and File:India freedom bar chart.jpg, for the reason that it is WP:OR. Other than OR, the image is misleading and doesn't mention the methodology. Also never I have seen "counting" the references of a subject in a book? If you have any rationale for the graph, you may describe, with some example such counting is done elsewhere. Regards, Doorvery far (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

F&f, good call on refactoring your comment at Talk:India page. As you obviously realize, there is no substance behind the "congress historian" charge, or the speedy deletion tagging; however, if one responds in anger or with incivility then there would be merit in complaints about CIVIL/AGF/NPA etc. Unfortunately, outside reviewers often conflate the two issues and tend to think that both sides are to blame ergo, there must have been some real underlying content issue. This is flawed line of thinking, but is human nature, and you have undoubtedly seen many examples of this on wikipedia. So it's best to stay calm, reply succinctly with sources, and trust that without distractions related to conduct issues, outside reviewers will be able to judge the arguments on their merits. Also it's often advisable to let process run its course. That is the reason I reinstated the speedy tags on the images even though I knew that they were misplaced; this may be considered bureaucratic, but it short-circuits lengthy debates about meta-issues such as, who can or cannot remove tags - and is less stressful in the long term. For example, the 2007 RFC at Talk:India was a huge time-sink, but at least the issue was investigated thoroughly at one go, and a broad consensus reached; that has greatly helped us respond to new users who pop up every few months insisting that Bose, Singh, or their favorite person/organisation from the era desrves equal weight with INC or Gandhi. On a completely different note: I recommended you as a copyeditor/peer reviewer at R.K. Narayan, which is being prepared for eventual FAC by User:SpacemanSpiff. The article is still being expanded, so it will perhaps be weeks or even months before it needs final polishing, and this is just a advance heads up. Hope you are doing well on/off wiki. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Files for deletion/2009 December 7 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Doorvery far (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

F&f, there is no chance of the files being deleted, so feel free to ignore the discussion and spending your time on actual content, instead of responding at the FfD page. I have already left a note there explaining why the images should be retained. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucy poems
Front page news, uh oh and congratulations!...Modernist (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, F&f, for your input on this. Overall very helpful; you definitely helped us make it a better article. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this. Delighted!  Congratulations to you all!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Holiday greetings
Best wishes to you and yours, including los gatos. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, K. Liz, Happy Holidays to you too!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you in turn for the lovely card. Best wishes for a happy New Year. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Note
If Ottava does not wish to keep the case notices on his talk page, he has the right to remove them. So long as the banned user template remains, there are no issues with this. His block is documented in enough places for an admin to know whats going on. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's talk
Please just let it be; your edits seem a bit like baiting. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)



MarmadukePercy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks and Wishes
Thanks for your wishes and wish you Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. -- Car Tick  02:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hi F&f, Happy Holidays! Happy New Year and thank you for your excellent editing and for your hard work, and for your card..., holy night...All the best...Modernist (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too, F&f. Most greetings cards and messages are too treacly for my taste, but you found a real gem! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy belated Christmas! Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holiday
Merry Christmas to you too, Fowler, and all the very best for the New Year. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose and Axis
you may be able to provide some info.--117.204.83.228 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mer-ry Christ-mas ....
.... to you too F&F. And best wishes for the 2010! Always good to see you commenting on, editing, and building wikipedia. Best wishes and warm regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I echo the above from RegentsPark. My words also. Funny how things turn out, isn't it? I am hoping for a very good year for us all. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say
...no hard feelings re. the RfB thing. Thanks for quickly revisiting and adding your support. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and you're welcome!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your help with 1997 Qayen earthquake's prose, it passed FAC the other day.  ceran  thor 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Young-refugee-delhi1947.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

History of India
Could you take a look at this one? IMO, some good faith edits and expansion that hasn't helped the article much. It's not a case of POV pushing, so it's difficult to actually cleanse the article (which also looks like a picture book for kids) without some deeper understanding of the many historical elements (my knowledge is more generic). cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was an undetected sock of the middle kingdoms of India POVer Dewan357. Too many intermittent edits to do a mass revert, so this will probably take some time to clean up.- Spaceman  Spiff  00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Creighton
I've had an intial looked thorugh, put it back into British English, tidied up a few links and tweaked others, and reduced overlinking. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so doubt I'll have time to do more. One thing that does need to be sorted is to get quotations compliant with the manual of style, see WP:MOSQUOTE. Logical quoting should be used, with punctuation placed inside the quote marks only if it forms part of the quotation. Since I don't have access tot he sources, this is something you'll need to sort out yourself. David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Indian Standard Time for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

how are you?
long time absence. hope everything is fine. hope to see you around some time. -- Car Tick  20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support in helping with the Boeing 777 FAR last November. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:BritishIndia1947a.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BritishIndia1947a.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:CreightonCartoonVanityFairA.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CreightonCartoonVanityFairA.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Madras Presidency
Could you please help me re-write the lead?? I am planning to nom the article for a GA sometime next week.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 07:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you?
Hi F&f. Just wondering where you've disappeared. Hope everything is well. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also noticed you haven't been around and hope all is well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I echo the above thoughts. I have been considering trying to work on English Grammar, but have no wish to play with anything that you are already working on. So, here's hoping that your silence is due only to pressure of work or extended holiday, and that you'll be re-surfacing soon. gramorak (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Old-sikh-man-carrying-wife1947.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.

Conflicted licensing on image File:Send-off-delhi1947.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Two-men-carrying-woman1947.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for peer review.
Hi Fowler&fowler, the article Namadhari naik belonging to Karnataka wikigroup, is edited by me and deals with the community history of the Namadharis/Halepaiks of Uttara Kannada. In creating this article i have referred to most of Kannada literature sources, some of which are really rare [ex; Bombay gazetteer in Karnataka: Dharwad,Belgaum,Bijapur and Kannara districts, Venkataramgo Katti; Kaada toreya jaadu: Autobiography of Kadidal Shamanna; Kagodu ondu nenapu, C.B.Chandrashekhar;The Nayakas of Ikkeri, K.D.Swaminathan;,Bimba-Pratibimba, Dr.L.R.Hegde;D.L.N Avara Ayda Lekhana, Kamala Hampana]. These form a necessary part of the glorious literary tradition of Kannada language and need to be seconded. hence i request you to kindly review the page.

offlate, i have been facing unilateral notices on the material without a proper knowledgable discussion on the topic. the member issuing notices seems to lack relevent knowledge in the subject and is defintely biased. but the warnings and unwarranted editing may lead to the page loosing out on the precious information derived from above mentioned sources. So i request neutral observers like you to review it and opinionate. thankyou

Tej smiles (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)