User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 33

Do you know anything about this? The information itself, not the removal of the information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Driving by... I think this is a fairly conventional view, though "modelled on" is probably more than we know. The Pataliputra capital is a key piece of evidence, though it may be from a later reign. Lots of refs there. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me contacting you to ask if one of the images you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (file name: Joppen_1907_India_in_the_2nd_Century_A.D.jpg) could be reproduced in a commercial reference publication, and, if so, how you would wish to be credited.

Many thanks,

Karen Marland

(Freelance publishing project manager) ~2026-38558 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if I figure at all, as the book's copyright has very likely expired. Others will know more. Pinging Titodutta, Johnbod, Vanamonde and RegentsPark.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm no expert on copyright issues but, if something is labeled as being in the public domain, then, I expect, anyone can use it in any way they like, without attribution. RegentsPark (comment) 21:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

The image File:Joppen 1907 India in the 2nd Century A.D.jpg seems to be in public domain. Please follow "License" mentioned in each file page. A Public Domain or Creative Commons 0 (CC0) file does not need attribution for usage, even commerical. Other Creative Commons files do require attribution, such as CC-SA-4.0. There might be other restrictions for other CC files such as CC-SA-NC–ND, which means that is no commercial, no derivative usage, but can be used with attribution for other usage. For best understanding, please follow the license details of each file. The file you have mentioned is under public domain and is ok to use. Though, not required by the license type, you may consider courtesy attribution to Wikimedia Commons and/or to the uploader. It is upto Fowler if they want attribution for username or any other name (first name/full name). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC) (sent using mobile, please excuse typos)

Karen, If you'd like to make the courtesy attribution, then it should be: Justus Perthes (publishing company) 1907; Fowler&fowler, Wikimedia Commons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I will include the courtesy attribution, which is only fair since you have kindly made the scan available.

All the best,

Karen ~2026-38558 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Karen, why are you using such a strange user name? I am suddenly seeing a number of other very similar ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

F&f, IP editors are now automatically assigned temporary accounts so that their IPs are no longer exposed. See WP:TA. Karen is an IP editor and the strange user name you are seeing is the temporary account assigned to their IP. RegentsPark (comment) 01:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. That's a good thing. Thank you, RP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree - should be ok. Been away. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Exdg77 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fowler&fowler_reported_by_User:Exdg77_(Result:_). Thank you. Exdg77 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you are edit warring at Jawaharlal Nehru and you have come close to breaking the WP:3RR, and there is evidence of ownership. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Continuing to revert could result in a restriction. Graham Beards (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I have been trying to engage the editor on the talk page with no results. They are adding text relentlessly. It is poorly and randomly sourced. Many sources are dated. The prose. In their hurry to add content, they've created a mishmash of what was there and what they have wanted to add, but with poor understanding of the sources, of idiomatic English, and a overall sense of late-British and early postcolonial Indian history. Moreover, they sometime add entire sections in one edit. This is material I know and have contributed to in the British Raj, Partition of India, Dominion of India, India, and Mahatma Gandhi. Admins who work in South Asia have told me that WP:ONUS is a fundamental principle of WP, to which Edxg77 is paying no heed. You and I have had major differences in the past. I don't consider your post to have been made entirely in good faith. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

And @Graham Beards:, as this is a difficult time for me, as it is, (see the banner up top), I request that you not post any more messages on my user talk page. This I am allowed by WP tenets. You may ask others to do so if you feel strongly about my actions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for your loss, but this is not and excuse to edit war (or to accuse me of acting in bad faith). Perhaps your taking a Wikibreak would help? Graham Beards (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru, where I have dissected the recently added content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not interested in the content of the article. Graham Beards (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)