User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Hi!

Warm greetingsItalic text - I hope you're doing good. Thank you for the welcome msg on my Talk page. I had a request for you to see on the page Persecution of Hindus - Before making an edit myself, I thought it would be good to discuss it with you people. Please see the talk page of the page. I have raised my concern. Thank you! Jenos450 (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't be done. WP:NPOV requires that all relevent view points found in reliable sources should be summarised. Aurangzeb's guilt is not easy to decipher and we can't present a black-and-white picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

I used recent sources and scholarly works, this is not done! I put so much time and effort into it. You can't just do what you feel like, it was recent and very much according to the rules. Please revert the edit. This is Wikibullying, I am gonna complain straight to Jimmy if you don't tell me why you did that. I have gone through WP:HISTRS while writing it. Jenos450 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is really a continuation of the previous thread, which was also continued at your talk page. What aspects of WP:HSC does your new source satisfy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

All of them, Tell me what it does not satisfy. Rephasing and correcting everything. This is the second time that you did it. Moreover, This is not a Raj-era source. This has been reissued and revived many times. Stop deleting content just because you don't like it. I put so much effort into these. You can hate BJP, You can dislike the entire right-wing but please don't try to play with history. You can not have control over historical facts. Please be neutral with your approach. Thanks. Jenos450 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to cut out unwarranted WP:aspersions and stick to WP:AGF.

You could have saved yourself effort by first raising the issues on the article talk page, and discussing what sources are acceptable and how much WP:WEIGHT each should be given. We had a discussion on your talk page about sources. You never mentioned the source that you finally decided to use.

The particular source you picked is by a certain Ram Gopal titled "Hindu Culture During and After Muslim Rule: Survival and Subsequent Challenges", published by M. D. Publications. It does not have any appearance of a scholarly work. There is no author biography that I can find. The publisher is not an academic publisher. And the book doesn't include any inline citations, which is a fundamental requirement of a scholarly work in order to provide evidence for the claims made. It has been essentially ignored in the scholarly literature. So why are we using this source, when there are so many authentic histories of the Mughal period available? And, worse, why is it being given so much space in an encyclopaedic article?

Coupled with this are your own personal interpretations. Take the first sentence for instance:

In 1659, Aurangzeb on his second anniversary of his accession, forbade the solar calendar, as an invention of Hindus, and directed the people to use Islamic lunar year on all occasions.

A reader will be surprised to find that "solar calendar" has been linked to Hindu calendar! Are the Hindus the only ones that use a solar calendar? (And, for your information, the Hindu calendar is a lunisolar calendar, not a pure solar one.) The source doesn't say he "forbade" the Hindu calendar or the solar calendar. In fact, the source says they continued to be in use. The additional commentary "as an invention of Hindus" is not present in the source.

Akbar introduced the previous calendar, which was called Fasli calendar, in order to help the tax-paying farmers, irrespective of their religion. It was fashioned after the Persian calendar, starting on nauroz. Aurangzeb went back to the lunar calendar, which is traditional to Islam. Neither of the measures had anything specifically to do with Hindus. But it is being put now under "Persecution of Hindus"! Can you explain that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

He was a historian and his work was reverted and cited by people just like your friend wanted. Elphinstone had all that but you still reverted him, you did not even dare to respond to me on my talk page when I provided you the proof upon how his books were the stepping stone of CBSE books today. Don't even get me started about incline citation, Audrey does not have this in her frictional book on Aurangzeb yet you cite her while the historian Elphinstone does and you were justifying his revert. Of course, there are other sources available but you will possibly revert those too. If there is so much space, minor edits can always be made by you or the other editors here who just revert anything without thinking twice. Moreover, the layout of the article has to be fixed, which should be the priority of your editors. :)

I hope you know that Hindu calender uses a solar year. Moreover, in Sanskrit, there are calculations about the appearance of the sun in various astronomical texts. A solar (saura) month is determined by the entrance of the sun into a zodiac sign, twelve months make a year. Thus the name solar calender was given in the 19th century and Hindu calender was widely called solar calendar until the 20th century in books and journals. I even linked Hindu calender to the word so it would not create any confusion for the readers. Although it was not appropriate to use it as a modern world jargon. Apologies.

Let me explain that to you, He is said to have discontinued the use of the Ilahi calendar. The `Aural-i-Seilik almost always gives both the Ilahi and the Hijri dates. The custom of weighing the emperor twice according to the lunar and solar reckoning involved the use of the Ilahi calendar. Illahi was from the syntactic religion called Din-i Ilahi which Akbar introduced as a Unity between Muslims and Hindu. The fact, that Aurangzeb discontinues the use of the Ilahi calendar totally proves how much Hindus were oppressed. He wanted to break any tie between Islam and Hinduism. Later, Aurangzeb also banned the New year according to the Hindu calendar.

Here is something for you, You cited foreign apologist/ignoring primary source Audrey saying that Britishers wanted to break the unity between Hindus and Muslims by their work. Do you know, Elphinstone was the first historian/administrator who disliked the Anglicized system of government. He sought to preserve the good in Maratha institutions and to make allowance for Maratha sentiment. To the raja of Satara, he restored a kingdom; to the great territorial magnates he returned lands, privileges, and judicial powers; and to the Brahmans, he gave back temple lands and provided awards for learning. He tried to maintain the authority and usefulness of the village headmen and of the tribunals, wherein village elders could administer the law locally. He was a pioneer of state education, and he persisted at a time when others were horrified at the idea of educating the indigenous peoples. He discarded the anglo content and applauded and made local subjects be taught in institutions. He was cited by Nehru library while creating the book discovery of India and Gandhi used to cite his book too. I am a graduating historian, we occasionally refer to him. He was one of the writer in colonial rule who was not biased. Please consider reverting his edit. Sad to see the other editor just reverted the edit without researching about him and you were justifying it. Jenos450 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Vinayaka Chaturthi that went past a few days ago, happened on Bhadrapada Shuklapaksha Chaturthi (the fourth day of the waxing phase of the moon in the Bhadrapada month). Every year, that is the day when Vinayaka is deemed to have been born. You are telling me that that is not Hindu calendar? Is Vinayaka not a Hindu deity?

Both of Akbar's calendars, Fasli and Ilahi, were purely solar calendars. But in various parts of India, people substituted the unfamiliar Persian month names by the familiar Hindu month names. So, some scholars seem to get confused and call it "luni-solar". But luni-solar involves intercalarary months or days, which the Akbar's calendars don't have.

The Ilahi era, which began on the year of Akbar's accession, was certainly heretical to Muslims, and Shahjahan discontinued it in the 10th year of his reign. Fasli, however, continued, Aurangzeb or no Aurangzeb. In Hyderabad it was used till India took it over in 1948. In Bangladesh it is still being used, even though the Bangladeshis don't know the connection with Akbar and claim that they invented it themselves!

WP:NPOV requires that carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. So that is what we expect you to do. Name calling scholars won't get you anywhere. Audrey Truschke's book is the most recent scholarly work on Aurangzeb published by Stanford University Pess. It has had academic reviews and used in scholarly literature [1]. So there is no way you can ignore it and give undue coverage to WP:FRINGE sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You're going on tangents now. Don't want to spend all day here.

Wrong, it was Hijri. Hijri is purely a lunar calendar. While Ilahi was solar. Research properly and give valid arguments. Akbar disliked Hijri as mentioned in Ain-i-Akbari. Since the Mughal empire followed the Islamic lunar calendar, it often posed a conflict with the common subjects as the lunar calendar was not in sync with the on and off seasons for cultivation in India. For the ease of his taxmen, Akbar ordered his astrologists to take the Islamic lunar calendar and prevalent solar calendar (Hindu) in India, combine them, and come up with a new lunisolar calendar. To begin with, Aurangzeb discontinued the use of the solar Ilahi year for the purpose of counting his reign years. Lunar Hijra year was bound to create difficulties in administrative affairs. It was decided, therefore, only to begin every year from the first of Ramazan. The Alamgir Nama very often gives Ilahi dates as well, so I mentioned that it was continued to be used. Illahi was solar, hence the Hindu calendar. It is interesting to note that even the Hindu calendar remained in official use until at least 1671.

I believe that this should be added to the article because AURANGZEB BANNED* The solar new year. This is clearly oppression of Hindus.

I read WP:NPOV It was unbiased and neutral. How is that even connected to what I wrote? You think its islamophobia but its just brutal history. Weird how you removed the destruction of Somnath temple while it is a clear cut fact outside Wikipedia available on Primary sources.

So what it was published by Standford press, She cited Far left The Wire and the scroll article that she wrote herself. Just like you ignored Elphinstone's work which was reviewed and released by the University of Toronto. Let me tell you a fact, Historians regardless of where they teach has an opinion and approach toward their work. Moreover, historians like Audrey can have an opinion but they should still follow the facts to be neutral. Audrey even failed to cite and ignored the massive chunk of primary sources which are available in her thin volume, it's all over the internet. Moreover, this is an article on Scroll which calls out her work. While, I don't see this criticism in the work of Elphinstone or Ram Gopal. In fact, they were praised by many known historians, unlike Audrey here. Talking about missing inside citations in Ram Gopal's work, you can easily find it at the last of the book. Please do your research.

Don't get too excited, Ram Gopal's work which you reverted is used in scholarly literature too. There is no way you can ignore it and give undue coverage to it too. It clearly shows that you just want to harass me, don't even know how many young editors you have harassed over the year but it's all out there.

I will make sure Jimmy discovers the dogma that you editors have created to protect each other and have control over information. Jenos450 (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Forced_conversion_to_Islam_in_Pakistan

Hi, Kautilya3, There used to be an article titled, "Forced_conversion_to_Islam_in_Pakistan" but it has been deleted. Can you revive that article by making appropriate changes?—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The overview section of draft article on the subject is only 14 sentences long. If you think it is any good, why not add it to Islam in Pakistan. If you are going to do that, I would recommend a thorough scrub to check (a) that sources are reliable, (b) that sources really do back up the statements they are cited for, and (c) that you give correct and precise page references. ("pp. 57–", "pp. 82–.", and "pp. 241–" are not sufficiently precise). Some of the sentences are a bit long.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see an article about religious conversions in Pakistan not just forced conversions which will not be related to just "Islam in Pakistan". Toddy1, I think if I add any matter about religious conversion to that article, all the Pakistanis will pounce on me and keep reverting it. We need a separate article. Can you guys start the article? I will add matter to it with reliable references.—Dr2Rao (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you can title it, "Religious conversions in Pakistan"—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have created the Religious conversions in Pakistan article. Please make corrections. Thanks.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Please add citations to the Religious conversions in Pakistan article wherever you feel additional citations are needed and try to make the article more "neutral" by adding any response with citations or else the article may be deleted. It was accepted by an admin but is now up for discussion at AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan#Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan so please go there also and comment. Thanks!—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rajput Images

I noticed that the image in the sub-section "emeregence as a community" does not suit the topic, perhaps this can be used:

Rajpoots of Narsingharh, Central India.

Reason being that there are no images of Rajputs from central India and there are already several from Rajasthan like playing Puchesee, A royal Rajput procession, Mayo College. The current image is also related to Marwar i.e. Rajasthan. My only arguement is that the other images are useful as they suit the sections they are in, however the Marwar one does not and can therefore be changed with the Narsinghgarh one. This way we will have a diverse range of images. Ranadhira (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chushul sector incident

Hello, I have added the fresh incident that took place in the Chushul sector. But did not get any infomration of exact place. It seems to me that must be near the Chinese PP 14 in Chushul. Can you dig in if get ample time. I am checking if anyone on twitter or any platform shared any info. Drat8sub (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Drat8sub, the OpenSteetMap editors give us pretty regular information about where the LAC is being contested.

If you actually expand the OSM Location map at Pangong Tso, the LAC you see is the one that is currently being claimed. You can see it as a faint line on the map here. Somebody changed it back at OSM. But apparently it will take a while for the Wikipedia imports of OSM to update.

The blue line shown here is from LSIB 2017 (which is the same as in LSIB 2013).

FYI, DiplomatTesterMan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The new line is still recorded on OpenStreetMap with the annotation "班公湖中方声索地区 China Claiming Area in Pangong Tso". The Chinese web site https://map.tianditu.gov.cn/ has been showing this line for a few years.

It is right next to India's Thakung base, which has a jetty launch. Evidently the idea is to disempower the jetty so that all possible threats to the Finger 4 claim line on the north shore are removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it, but here these yellow dot marking chinese patroling point is also new right. One that is CPP 9, absurdly placed in the lake and other one CPP 14 which I think placed recently to mark their recent post, I think this is the point they try to enter as the earlier line in the OSM is very close to this actually. Drat8sub (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the yellow markers are the border points declared in 1960. They are approximate and need to be interpreted as some sensible locations. The blue line (US Officer Geographer's line) interprets sensibly. The Chinese have interpreted it liberally to mean the ridge line to the northwest of the "claw-like" bay. But no amount of interpretation can move it to the Thakung bay, which is what they are trying to do right now.

But there are some interesting noises coming out of the Chinese camp now. We should get clearer picture by tomorrow morning. For now all we have is this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This peak (Google satellite) is most likely what is called the "Helmet Top". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I presume that what is being called the "Black Top" is another feature on the same ridge since Ajai Shukla says it is on the Indian side of the LAC. (It can't be the original "Black Top", which he shows on his map. That one is certainly on the Chinese side, and it is the position from where the Chinese launched the Battle of Gurung Hill in 1962.) Reusing that name here is certainly a bad idea, and is bound to lead to a lot of confusion. The Hindu referred to it as "across the LAC".

More coverage in Economic Times. But they don't describe the location. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

An interesting blog post. (Try it with Google translate turned on.) The map at the beginning of section 7 shows the original LAC and the new LAC China is trying to create. The job on the north shore is already accomplished. The south shore is being worked on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

LAC contestation at South Pangong

@Drat8sub and DiplomatTesterMan: I think I am able to reconstruct some of the events of the 29/30 August based on bits and pieces from here are there.

The US Geographer's blue line runs along a ridge that is called "Pultu" ("Puertu", "Puerchu", "Pultuna" etc.) by the Chinese. The currently operational LAC, shown by OpenStreetMap, runs to the north of it, along a ridge that I will call "Thakung Heights". It overlooks the Thakung base. Both the Indians and the Chinese have tracks/paths leading up to it [2], but the Indians seem to have an advantage because the Chinese side of the incline is too steep. The very top of the ridge line seems to be controlled by India. The "Helmet Top" is probably a post there. But it does not seem to be manned 24x7, probably by mutual agreement.

On the night of the 29th, the Chinese attempted to occupy Helmet Top and brought construction equipment to build fortifications (as per the Indian statements). The Indians got wind of it and sent forces there, and retook the post by the morning of 30th. There are indications that a Special Frontier Force manned by Tibetan expatriates was involved.

During the rest of the day on the 30th, I am guessing that the Indians retaliated in force and reached the Pultu line. detresfa indicates this in his image. During that day and the next, the Indians also reinforced the entire ridge line forming the LAC so that no further Chinese incursions are possible. They may have also driven out the Chinese from a post at "Rechin La" (or "Reqin La"), well to the south of the earlier action, and taken control of it.

To draw a rough analogy with the north shore, the Pultu line is the equivalent of "Finger 8" and Thakung Heights is the equivalent of "Finger 4". So, the Indians advanced to the equivalent of "Finger 8", which explains the Chinese statement that they had crossed the "LAC". The Indians can also maintain that they have "not crossed the LAC". There are so many LAC's that everybody can have their pick. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Indians got wind of it, media says that this wind was caught through cameras placed at the location; LOC surveillance infrastructure and LAC surveillance infrastructure are miles apart

There are so many LAC's that everybody can have their pick, relevant terms which I can recall > differing perceptions, India’s perception of the LAC, China’s perception of the LAC, Chinese control of India’s perception of the LAC..... I am sure there were some more combinations and phrases.

So now we have one more water body in the picture, Spanggur Tso (Spanggur Gap). As per the traditional Aksai Chin line and India's LAC, about half of it falls within India. However detresfa's map shows Chinese camps all along the western edge.

China gobbled up Spanggur Tso quite some time ago. Recent reporting about Spanggur Tso before this event goes as following:

ThePrint 2017: South of the Pangong Tso and East Chushul, there is another freshwater lake named Spanggur Tso. It is presently under Chinese control and is the source of many jibes against Indian officers. At almost every Border Personnel Meeting, Indian officers are reminded that they can’t eat the freshwater fish of the Spanggur Tso.

DTM (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eward Weller map, 1863

Freshwater? Spanggur Tso's real name is Tso Rul (Bitter Lake)!

The first border decided by Henry Strachey was indeed to the west of Tso Rul. But it appears that the Spanggur Gap was left in Ladakh and so was Rezang La. The border was nowhere near Tokung (Thakung). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Swaminarayan

Hi Kautilya3. Could you bother to read through Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Major branches and mode of succession, and the first subsection, "Mode of succession," and tell me (here, at your talkpage) what you think of this way of interpreting sources? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Category names

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Category:Analysts of India-Pakistan conflict and the following section about Category:Analysts of Kashmir conflict. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

typing in Devanagari

Hi Kautilya3, I am writing an article and for that I need to write some Sanskrit verses. Is there a way to type in Sanskrit on wikipedia?How did editors type ऋग्वेद in Rigveda in Devanagari? (Here I copied and pasted). Is there some easy way? Do I need some special keyboard? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know how to type any Indian scripts. But on English Wikipedia, it is better to use IAST. There are also some tools mentioned at the bottom of that page, which might be helpful.

Do any of my talk page watchers know some good solutions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Best I can do follows:

You could try transliteration at easynepalityping.com (Type "rigwed" then press space to get "ऋग्वेद", press backspace to get a list if the transliteration is not the one you are looking for). Should work most of the time but some characters or symbols may be missing since Nepali system is more or less simplified Sanskrit. In Windows OS, you can get Sanskrit keyboard by adding Sanskrit to your language preferences and then use on-screen keyboard to type in characters as you see them, slowly. The second method should provide all characters and symbols, speaking theoretically of course, not having tried it myself.

Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nature of partition violence

Greetings Kautilya3, this is the IP who once asked you about Chattopadhyay here [3].

As an experienced editor on India-Pakistan issues, I want your opinion on the nature of partition violence. On a talkpage here [4] (Sexual slavery in Islam [5]) (the discussion is all over the place, just search for "partition" and "India" and focus on the new comments) in a new article there are editors who are trying to draw lines straight from Muhammad to Mahmud of Ghaznavi to partition violence. Their argument is that the "enslavement of women during the partition of India" was a "was a widespread phenomenon that found its justification in the Islamic religion" and that partition violence was Islamic in nature and presumably so were other instances of attacks and rapes of Hindus like the Moplah rebellion or Nakholi.

Do scholars and the governments of either nation support this claim? The editors claim that sources like Yasmin Khan The Great Partition, 2007, Andrew J. Major[6], [7], [8] and others support this view.

Now, while it is is true that the Islam-Hindu conflict played an important role in these events, I was under the impression that these outbursts of communal frenzy were not really theologically inspired by Islam itself. Those arguing against this present the Pathan raiders Islamic justifications as proof of the violence's connection to Islamic law but if that is the case then why did these same things happen to Muslim women as well in the case of the partition and others? I've not gotten a satisfactory response to that, though in fairness they are willing to include the mass rapes of Muslim women by Sikhs as well (but then how is that connected to Islam?).

So what do you think? This is just one of the many issues with the linked article and I thought of getting your opinion on the partition sexual slavery angle considering your focus. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your query. Nothing that I have read singles out one side over the other in the partition violence. Nor does it make any connection to religious beliefs.

But it is true that slave-taking as "war booty" has been an accepted practice in Islam and at least the Pashtun tribes did it during the partition violence. However, the places where they could get their hands on were quite limited (Baramulla, Rajouri and Mirpur). I presume that those few instances are being blown out of proportion by the POV-pushers on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tinkar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khalanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Impressed

Just noticed Talk:Rajput#Round 3. You must have a lot of patience! It's good somebody is willing to try mediating these awful disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we move to Dispute resolution forum of wikipedia

The community concensus is against anything still it is removed.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, the term "community consensus" can only be used when it is determined by an WP:RfC. At the moment, all we are doing is to debate the issues so that the points of disagreement become clear. When they become clear, we might indeed need an RfC. But I am not yet clear where we stand. Part of the problem is that I don't have time right now to research the sources myself. So I am depending on you people to present the evidence so that we can come to a resolution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For the initial work on and for laying the foundations of Depsang plains. DTM (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DiplomatTesterMan. I am even happier this morning because the Depsang Nala suddenly appeared on the map, whereas it didn't appear last night. (The full screen version still doesn't show it. The vagaries of software!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have re-edited the Ram Mandir, Ayodhya page. Please clearly specify what part is not neutral. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalvedantin (talk • contribs)

Liberalvedantin, we should continue this on your own talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Swarajay

Kautilya3 and JJ in defense of Swarajay magazine.... my my, who would have thought so? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the irony of it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your moderation on Rajput page

Hi, Kautilya3 I think you were doing a great job at moderating the debate. And without 3rd party help that debate won't end as you saw what happened before you accepted to become the moderator. Those two users are too much possessive about the article and and as you rightly said one of them was showing WP:OWN behaviour. They already made their edits and didnt want to listen or to edit others hence now that you left the debate they are not doing anything. They earlier were asking for many other senior editors and at Dispute resolve platform just to get you removed. Which was apparent when within minutes of your last comment one user closed and archive the whole section. They don't need any debate at all, they want to keep the article that way. Hence I request you to please join that debate as moderator again so can complete the whole discussion soon. @NitinMlk also said the same thing about you and requested you to join the discussion again. Please reconsider that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sajaypal007, I expected that you would continue the discussion in the same format that I had established there. You need to raise one issue at a time and keep the focus on it. You also need to avoid recriminations and focus on content only. If and when it becomes clear that no agreement is possible on any particular issue, you can use WP:DR to resolve it. So, try it please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 they never accepted a single change and they won't do it now, without 3rd party intervention its really not possible and we may get warnings from Senior editors. I don't want to indulge in the mess, I want clean and trouble free debate which won't be possible without any moderator. If you really have made up your mind, can you please ask some other senior editor to the moderating who is also knowledgeable about the subject, i think if you will ask then they won't say no. You know better than we people there. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Often we aim to reach agreement during discussions, but there is also the moder limited objective of narrowing differences, i.e., being able to pinpoint where the differences lie. When that point is reached, you can take it to WP:DRN, which is a more formal method of moderation. (It is not really possible for moderators to operate unless all parties accept to participate in a moderated discussion and the choice of the moderator.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Sino Pak Treaty Removal

Thank you for the message and i shall respect the guidelines however what happens when the source is approved from the author himself to be posted as such? Can it still be done?

Secondly if i was to make the edit again but this time using my own words which took inspiration from the source material and cite that source material, would that be alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiyan0321 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Punjabi Caste Kashmiris

Per my amendments to posts on Punjabi Caste Kashmiris, and related posts, the current posts are not based on established historical facts which are widely available in mainstream literature, there is nothing original about what I am saying. So, on what basis, are non-facts being accepted, when someone like me, would just assume that the old facts would be known by editors here? There is nothing innovative about my claims about Caste Kashmiris in Punjab and how ethnic identities are conceptualised within the context of political spaces; not least an historical one with ample amounts of historical information available about how various group identities emerged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchingaccreditedfacts (talk • contribs) 10:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Researchingaccreditedfacts, I recall that your edits removed sourced content, and added unsourced content. That cannot be done as per the policies of Wikipedia. If you feel that the content is not accurate, even though it is sourced, you need to raise the issue on the article's talk page, and wait for the involved editors to look into it. If and when a WP:CONSENSUS regarding them is reached, then the article should be edited as per CONSENSUS. Please do not treat Wikipedia as if it were your personal blog site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia about Azad Kashmir, Jammu, Mirpur, Kashmiri Pandits, Mirpuri diaspora, Muslim Kashmiris, "source" a couple of citations wrongly cited, pulled from random books, unrelated to what the accredited authors are actually saying about various themes in their own books, push false narratives with underlying political agendas, and feel proud that they've contributing to knowledge? This is what you're moderating?

You're moderating posts that are so far from mainstream beliefs on ethnicity, migration, history, identity, that the content in question is akin to pseudo-knowledge. It's ignorance not knowledge. Who will moderate the moderators and the bandwagons that have taken ownership of Wikipedia for their "cause"? How do we know that you don't have an agenda of your own? There is one common theme in all the "Kashmiri" posts, and that is to remove the various stakeholders of Kashmir - the actual Princely State into false groups; how did "Punjabi Kashmiris" become ethnic Kashmiris, a social unit of identification that has never been connected to an ethnic identity, even in the Valley, the wider Jammu & Kashmir State, or Punjab?

How did social stratification of a group, occupational castes within documented norms of an established caste and clan system, morph into an ethnic identity all of a sudden, geographically and ethno-linguistically removed from the locus of the actual ethnic group's LIVED EXPERIENCE? Do you not realise how stupid that idea is to ethnologists? Do you even understand the working definition of ethnicity to realise how stupid some of the posts sound? Do you understand the notion of ascription in group identities outside political narratives on nations (nationalism)? I put it to you that you're biased, you have no intellectual investiture in the non-academic ideas you're espousing about "Punjabi Kashmiris" or "Muslim Kashmiris" and you're distorting mainstream scholarship, which is widely available. You're the editors and you don't even know how out of touch you posts are with mainstream accredited scholarship. Someone needs to hold you guys to account, volunteers or not, u have agendas. You're not neutral. researchingaccreditedfacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchingaccreditedfacts (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My editing of Gawkadal shooting incident

Thanks for reaching out to me. Somehow I did not understand your pre-defined text message.What policy I was violating ? I was merely renaming few phrases to align them to be consistent of neutral point of view. I do not want to indulge in some edit/revert thing. Could we discuss this here or other forums ? registeredEditor ArihantB 19:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi ArihantB, you cannot modify widely used terms according to your own liking. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources.

Moreover, it is best not mess with well-settled pages unless you have solid policy-based grounds for doing so. You should also discuss it on the talk pages in advance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So how does Charlie Hebdo shooting is merely called a shooting and Gawkadal shooting incident is called a massacre ? can you enlighten me ? Does the reliable sources also judge if it is shooting or massacre ? registeredEditor ArihantB 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, how about if something biased is "well established" and not neutral ? Should it just be there because it is there for long time and not one care to edit it ? registeredEditor ArihantB 20:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:STICKTOSOURCES.

And, yes, long-standing content cannot be modified without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. I think you need to start reading the policies that I am citing, instead of arguing. Those policies determine how Wikipedia is written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy and as per the very first sub-heading , it says : When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. So let's discuss it. registeredEditor ArihantB 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss is the article's talk page. And you need to back up your claims by citing reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss this on the article's talk page. registeredEditor ArihantB 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Need some help/advice

Hey there, I was recently going through the Notable Arrests section of UAPA here. And someone tried to organize it into a table for some reason, in that process some old information was lost, I restored it, but I have some questions about citations. How does citation work in this table? Like do you cite each item in each column, say a cite for the name, a cite for the note, a cite for the charge et cetera. Or do you just put a single cite for an entire row? If that then where should be the single cite placed? Ashlesh007 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The answer depends on the type of information in the table, and on whether it is sortable.

• In Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act#Notable arrests made under the Act the solution chosen was to put the citation in the column marked charge. This would me more useful if the charge was always put into that column. There is nothing to stop you having different citations in different cells of the same row, or many citations in one cell.
• In COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine#Statistics the table is filled with numeric data, with different sources for each line, so there is a column marked "Ref" that has the citation or citations for that line. This is a particularly good solution if the table is sortable.

With either solution you can have as many citations for each row as you need. If there are contradictory data values, there are three possible solutions:

1. A column marked notes.
2. To mention the contradictions in the citations - for example, The Hindu (21 Nov 2020) said that 21 people were killed, but The Grauniard (22 November 2020) said 12.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
3. To use the notes feature, which allows you to have lettered footnotes in parallel to numbered citations - see Template:Efn

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey there Toddy1, thanks a lot, will make necessary updates to the table!

Ashlesh007 (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Zakaria1978. But you did quite well yourself! Hope to see more of you around. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers

Hi Thanks for that welcome I was wondering could you help me on Womens Rights in Jammu article? A new account which I suspect is a sock is rearranging text and twisting the original data I have amended it for now but there is an investigation into SanjeevMishra1947 please keep an eye out Himachal78 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Himachal78 Ok, I will keep a watch. I don't know why there is sudden interest in the women of Jammu and Kashmir. Is there some development that I haven't heard about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I dont know but I know since his previous sock account was banned he came with a new one which may explain it Himachal78 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Review of an edit

Hi Kautilya could you kindly review this edit of mine [9] The user SanjeevMishra1947 modified using a daily news paper and a article quoting government advise and I replaced it with the original text and put reliable sources regarding the issue. Himachal78 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Himachal78, that edit is perfectly fine. But a lot of issues still abound! It is probably best to rewrite the whole page, one section at a time. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

AI to the rescue

The ClueBot is getting pretty daring now! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

About Darchula Nepal

The data is provided by the government. It is not how people view it. If you have any concerns contact Government of Nepal. And kindly change the article way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudhir Aacharya (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to state the Government viewpoints with attribution. But information given in Wikipedia voice needs to be WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pakistan" wikipedia page map

When you search "Pakistan wikipedia" in google the pakistan page of wikipedia shows a pakistan map where it states "Land controlled by Pakistan shown in dark green; land claimed but not controlled shown in light green" but the siachen glacier part is shown in dark green instead of light green, and in india wikipedia page siachen glacier is shown in dark green , India is correct siachen glacier is controlled by India, So shouldn't pakistan wikipedia page map should show siachen glacier area in light green as shown in India wikipedia page & it is shown in dark green meaning oppositely pakistan should show that area light green, I hope you understand what I am trying to say & edit aka correct it :) heres the link of pakistan page "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan" Swtadi143 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about the map-making. That seems to be an old map, which has a tag saying that it needs to be updated. I wonder if any of the talk-page watchers can help?

But I noticed that Siachen needs to go on the China-India border, which is our current focus anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah same I think you should notify the talk page in that pakistan wikipedia page to update the map. Yes your correct the siachen is closer to china india boder but its not shown in that pakistan wikipedia page in light green.

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tags

Regarding the tags, they are normal for talk pages which are of interest to a WikiProject. Please note the same practice exists for the Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan pages, where the relevant WikiProject tags are present. I believe the same was clarified many years back by RegentsPark. I don't agree that it is "sovereignty battling", because the tags simply indicate that the page is of interest to the mentioned project, nothing less or more. Mar4d (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We agreed that we will limit the cross-sovereignty claims to the top-level political units. Kashmir Valley is not a top-level political unit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, can you refer to the relevant venue of the said agreement (just for my personal reference)? Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the discussion there petered out without a firm conclusion. But Fowler&fowler did implement it for the top-level units, and that is where the situation stands at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I could not find comments regarding project tagging (maybe I just did not look hard enough), but fair enough. Mar4d (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kongka Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keriya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum

The title is what happened in the sino indian war its no territorial changes. Let me add it I will also provide source Swtadi143 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you sound like Narendra Modi. The territorial changes are well-documented and published in numerous places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

References

War started in 20 october and when the war ended in november 21 it went to pre war boundaries i.e to 19 October which is also called staus quo ante bellum your history memorizations skill is weak (or you simply dont know anyway), I am surprised you didnt know this fact sad LOL.

Lol I sound like narendra modi you say??? funny funny, Is telling facts sounding like modi?? okie boomer.

Yup, na koi ghusa hai, no koi ghusa hua hai, like we all don't have eyes to see! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

They definetly invaded and occupied arunchal pradresh some parts of assam but they returned to pre war boundaries i.e the situation in 19 October, Also MAM I want to tell you that in 19 October china already took aksai chin and had reached its LAC , it only invaded india crossing its own declared line of actual control on from 20 october. So beleive it or not there was invasion but no territorial changes i.e your saying "koi gusa nahi hai" is wrong they definently invaded India to teach India a lesson and troops even reached assam even though they didnt claim it, it was a show of power for china to say who is dominant in asia, Hope you understand Mam, I am not modi bhakt i just reperesent facts and truth. :)

China took/ pushed out indian troops/ annexed aksai chin before the war i.e 19 October that is why some people who write china annexed aksai chin in 1962 war is completely incorrect, China has parts of aksai chin from its road built from 1956 and it took whole aksai chin in 1962 19 october and day after that they invaded India, So anybody who writes that china annexed aksai chin in 1962 sino indian war in 20 october- 21 november war is completely wrong china took aksai chin way earlier for you kind history info. That is why status quo antebellum mam understand history properly. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs)

Well, if you are not a Modi bhakt, you would have read the reliable source I have provided. Have you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"www.youtu.be/DlfSexPPa0Q" <Just remove www. from here and use https:// thats it. (Instead of www. Use https:// + youtu.be/DlfSexPPa0Q) this video of a minute clearly explains the 1962 war,I wrote www. Instead of http:// because wikipedia doesnt allow real youtube links so that why the inconvenience happaened

Did you watch the video?

Sex PPa 0 IQ? I don't watch such videos. More than a thousand soldiers laid down their lives for the country. Over 4,000 got captured. Many more thousands trekked through the tallest Himalayan mountains for weeks in order to get to safety. All you can do is to watch one-minute 0IQ videos? What a great Indian you are! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol also that "sex" word in middle of link in that is a complete coincidence randomly generated video short link, when I copied the video linked it is there, Its a 1962 war 1 minute video not anything else, also why wont you watch such videos its not a profane video its a historical video are you trying, if you dont want to use that link or beleive it something else of a coincidence in a suspscion just search "[Wars] The Sino-Indian war (1962):every day" by Glactic PenguinTV Youtuber in youtube and after you open it copy the link and see its the same link that I provided just to prove you I didnt send you something bad and It was just a coincidence and that was indded the same link for that title video, I am not lying trust me, By the way I am from bharatpur, Nepal, I am not even Indian just was intrested in that war LoL.

Random youtube videos, whatever IQ they are worth, are entirely pointless for Wikipedia because they are not reliable sources. So you are wasting your time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Undid Revision

Why undid you my revision in Kalapani Territory, what was wrong there?

Did you read the description of the File:Map of the United Provinces from The Imperial Gazetteer of India (1907-1909).jpg?. In description it is clearly written that it is a New edition, published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907-1909.

You know when was the New edition map was printed? Check here [10] [11] [12]

Only map of New edition was updated in the same 1907-1909 Gazetteer of India. --- 👤Raju💌 18:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Also know the fact that File:Sketch of Kumaon (Survey of India), 1819.jpg is a reduce copy of origina File:1819 Map of Province of Kumaon by Webb.jpg. The file was reduced to fit in the book File:Historical Records of the Survey of India Vol.-3.pdf, that's why the names couldn't be possible to write on the reduced map. -- 👤Raju💌 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Raju Babu, the map that is in commons is not the same map as those you have linked above, even though I admit that all of them exclude Kalapani territory. Whether that was by intent or in error I can't say. But in any case, if you want to claim the later date, you need to get and upload those maps.

As for the 1819 map, I didn't put the version from the Historical Records in the gallery. You did. Please feel free to change it to the original. I will be happy to make a cropped version so that it is readable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Redo the edit!

I modified the article after authenticating the fact along with the source. I also added my source. Redo the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalim007 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean this revert? No that edit cannot be redone. You cannot combine material from different sources to convey a meaning that they don't do. That is called WP:SYNTHESIS and it is prohibited. (Please make sure you read the edit summaries in reverts. They explain why something has been reverted.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Unpresidented?

A friend says "Twitter has censored 4 of his tweets in past 24 hours. Unprecedented. (Is unpresidented a word?)". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You may find this a good spectatorsport

[13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it Indian american or Indian-american?

Does the dash (-) really matter or is the first one more correct or both are the same and can be used interchangeably? I just saw tweet of modi congratuating harris like 10 hours ago and writing Indian-american instead of just writing Indian American which one is correct to use in wikipedia? I have used Indian American in kamala harris page instead of Indian-American I am confused what I did was right or wrong and should the dash be used? Swtadi143 (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be just "Indian American". An ordinary hyphen is acceptable but unnecessary. That implies we are talking about an American of Indian descent. It should not be the "en dash" (–). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian recipients of the Military Cross

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian recipients of the Military Cross requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, this is silly. It has not been even seven hours, let alone "seven days" since the creation of the category. Care to withdraw? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, in my haste I missed the create date. No longer tagged for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV

A discussion is going on, on the reliability of Republic TV Click Here. Feel free to join and comment, as only I and another editor have been active yet. We are in need of more ideas to reach a discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you Fylindfotberserk. Happy Diwali to you too!

I don't have fireworks this year. But some beatiful diyas! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Me too! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. LukeEmily (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you very much LukeEmily. Hope you had a wonderful Diwali as well. Troubled times, but we look for light nevertheless!

Happy Diwali 2020

Happy Diwali

Hello,
Hope you are doing well.
Wishing you a happy, safe, and prosperous Diwali. Stay safe. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Titodutta. Happy Diwali to you too. Long time no see! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

1934 Jammu and Kashmir Praja Sabha election

Hi Kautilya3 - I think I've solved your problem at 1934 Jammu and Kashmir Praja Sabha election. If you look at the guidance for Template:Infobox election, it states

"type = <!-- presidential, parliamentary, legislative, primary, or by-election --><!-- MANDATORY, and limited to the preceding five types -->"

Before I edited it, it said "princely state" - not one of the five options - so I changed it to legislative. The rest seems to work - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

To inform you

It was to mention you, i should have just put hi kautaliya in beginning of sentence insted of just mentioning your name at last just like you mentinoed my name hi swtadi. Swtadi143 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Re:Towards Freedom 1939

Dear User:Kautilya3, thanks for your message on my talk page. I will definitely check it out when I have the opportunity. Please continue to share things like this with me. I do really appreciate it! With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

What more consensus is needed regarding History of Kabaw Valley?.Quite annoying! what made you remove all content of kabaw valley history even if you disagree with part of the content,should you not bring it to talk page first without removing allꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, I have removed your content because it does not satisfy the Wikipedia requirements of WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. You have to wait until CONSENSUS is achieved. If you edit-war, you are liable to be sanctioned.

Moreover, I would also add that your writing was quite poor quality. It was full of long incoherent sentences and clauses, and even punctuation and spacing was wrong. Your text was misleading in omitting key information and flatly wrong in its use of language.

Nevertheless, I think you have the enthusiasm and energy to improve and become a good Wikipedia editor. You just can't expect it happen overnight. So please be patient and work with me till we can transform it into an acceptable shape. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok are you still now unsatisfied with the history content of Kabaw Valley,I provided all WP:RSꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ)

Luwanglinux, providing RS is only the first step. The content must be accurate and complete. It should not be misleading anywhere. We are still quite a long way off from that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok let me ask you a question too?

lets say Nehru did not take part in topic regarding kabaw valley at any point of time,explain how Compensation to India(Manipur) was stopped without any permission from Manipur King or Government of manipur or any agreement that ended 1834 agreement?ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) Also I would like to add that Manipur had a de jure Sovereign democratic form of government since 14th August 1947 which was dissolved later on after Manipur became part of India.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ)

November 2020

Don't confuse fellow editor with the rules of WP:RS,as you did at Manipur State Constitution Act 1947.sources found from archive.org are consider reliable sources and those are archive indeed.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947

what made you nominate it for deletion?,as for Chinese law firm that source can be removed but I kept it because since it was written by a notable google scholar learned in law,the thing is that act or constitution was adopted and in efffect before India's constitution come in effect in 1950,and there is no law or conclusion till date which make the act void and null officially.The short period from 14th Aug 1947 to 15th October 1949 Manipur was sovereign(not a princely state under British or India) and its a fact.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 08:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Really hahaha I know why you delete those citation,are you now saying those archive source are unreliable source.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You can read WP:RS to find out what is a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't create new rule just for your convenience,you keep removing any source if it mentioned Manipur was sovereign,,it can be seen clearly from your past edit on Manipur State Constitution Act 1947,stop violating existing WP:PGꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 04:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Nathula and Chola clashes

A vpn user (anonymous user) keeps reverting it to chinese victory, he/she is like a chinese spy kid, You must promote that wikipedia page to semi protected aka for extended confirmed user only to prevent that users blatant vandalism and desconstructive edits. I recently reverted his edit just now by changing his edit of chinese victory to Indian victory in the main table. Either Ip block that user or just make the wikipedia page semi protected. Heres the link:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathu_La_and_Cho_La_clashes Hope you help. Swtadi143 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swtadi143, the disruption so far would not be consider adequate to warrant any form of protection. We will have to put up him for now. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

ok

Kalaripayattu

Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much.

The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with [14]). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Please help. 2409:4073:386:3EE4:A59A:FA9A:F747:6ECC (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not speedy deletion

Did you not withraw the nomination? if you can tag the page for deletion why can't I close it if the problem was well addressed.What more do you need.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 08:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

No no bro, it was not any religion agenda or anything . I wrote from the book that's why didn't consider this things. You removed my whole article that's why got aggressive. I don't have intentions to hurt you really. If you found any religion agenda or something like hindu word in confliction etc you could remove it. But you removed all that part instead of a portion or any reference etc. It takes a lot of time to read the materials and to write the things on Wikipedia and anyone just come and removed it without giving a little bit time to it. Really hurts a lot. Thank you Ravi mavi (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that is better.

When an edit is reverted, you get an alert, and you are best advised you to read the WP:edit summary of the reverting edit. The edit summary explains why the edit was reverted. If it is not clear to you, you are welcome to ask the reverting editor.

I know that it feels bad to get an edit reverted. Unfortunately, it seems to be the only way to learn how Wikipedia works. Or, you can spend some time learning how to do it right. WP:TWA is a good start.

You should also read the article you are trying to edit, in full, and follow some of the citations given there in order to understand why the article is written in the way it is. You might also start a discussion on the talk pages: why does the article say X? shouldn't it say Y? If you show genuine interest, people will help you. If you act like you know better than them, they won't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You again reverted the article on Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas even without considering the four references given over there and without explaining the appropriate reason of it . Atleast give a minute to it before doing any reverting again or leave for the WP:CONSENSUS and don't show like you are a boss and privileged owner of the Wikipedia. I want to discuss the topic Polity manner but you continue to giving warning and all just to take unwanted revenge and willing to spread the false narrative on your own will. Well fine it's okay do whatever you want to do. Then, thnks to understanding me why Britannica is getting popular then, Wikipedia just because of the people like you arbitrarily want the addition as per their own will even not considering any Governmental data too or reliable sources. I'm not interested to be a part of this kind of fake narrative running by you people on Wikipedia and so heteful people. Thank you Ravi mavi (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manipur State Constitution Act 1947; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 12:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 enacted on 1947 precedes Indian Constitution which is in effect from 1950.This act is not related with India,period.The article is about legal law in effect from 1947.If you create further disturbance of bulldozing India preference without any source you will be reported to the concern authority.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya

On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rathore&action=history this chariotrider and a some annoymous guy is doing are engaging in disruptive edit warring and they already have edited the pages 4-5 times to the version they want it to be can you please block both of them this. chariotrider is also highly biased and has engaged in disruptive edit warring on various rajput related pages thank you Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sungpeshwe9, I am not an admin. I notice that the Rathore page is certainly being monitored by the admins, who will take care of it when undue edit-warring occurs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User is blocked for sockpuppetry. He may have caused disruption on numerous articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for letting me know, Heba Aisha. If I were an admin, I would hardly be taking instructions from a (seemingly) newbie editor as to whom to block. The guy had some nerve! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about? Heba Aisha (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

His message at the top. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Grand Slam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The IIT Jammu edit

Hey as a student of IIT jammu i actually made the crrect edits which can be verified by the link in th references section. I don't understand why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urooj akhlaq (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Urooj akhlaq, the elaborate message on your talk page explains. You cannot copy content from other documents and web sites. You need to summarise them in your own words, as appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me in which month of 1946 was this Indian map released?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1946_Political_Subdivisions_of_India_by_National_Geographic.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

This is a map given by you, you wrote this map was created/released in 1946... I just want to know when was this map exactly release in 1946, which month of 1946??? Do you know early 1946, mid 1946 or late 1946 which month of 1946 does this map exactly dates back? Which month was it released? Pls answer...Swtadi143 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. It was published in National Geographic, probably as part of a large article on India. I don't expect that the exact date would be of any consequence, because NG doesn't cover current events. You can ask them if you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a really useful map. Thanks for telling us about it. I have added it to the article on Patiala State.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right. It can be used in practically all the princely state and district pages to show the state of affairs before independence. You can also chop into small regions like I did for File:Jammu and Kashmir in 1946 map of India by National Geographic.jpg -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

String of Pearls

Hi, would you kindly check this removal, by the Canadian IP-range you came across here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, the justification in the edit summary is fair enough. A better source would be needed. I wonder if DiplomatTesterMan can look into it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressed for now, though yes, better linkage sources needed. DTM (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you ...

translate this User:सनातनी लड़कियों का नियोगी? Not sure if this is a kosher name or not. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It is made up, by a non-Hindi speaker. Literally, Niyogi (employee) of Sanatani (traditonalist) girls, or perhaps employed for Sanatani girls? There is nothing ambiguous about these edit summaries. Pure abuse and bigotry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed the abuse in the edit summary. Have blocked as not here. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Report author RegentsPark for violation of not reading source material before reverting work

Regarding page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mughal_Empire Further information can be found on that talk page.

I removed text regarding imposition of foreign culture on indigenous culture was not vigorously suppressed when in fact all sources provided show that it was imposed by force.

Further more through any other independent research I've found no evidence to say that Mughal Emperors ever didn't force Jizya (non Muslim tax) on all non Muslims by force with severe penalties. All sources show that Mughal Emperors imposed foreign religious rule over the indigenous non Muslim culture and forced a system of nobility to rule over natives.

Author RegentsPark has multiple times requested I read the sources given in proof of original work which show no evidence to back his viewpoint up. In fact the sources all state the author wrong. Mughals did impose with serious penalty and force on non Muslim natives, Muslim rule. This is a historical judgement fact from all sources provided.

Please look further into topic and apply disciplinary action if necessary. Otherwise I'm happy to report using the following guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention to further administration for vandalism without evidence, as sufficient evidence hasn't been given by author. timestamp was missing so adding now - SumeetJi (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

SumeetJi, RegentsPark is not an author. He is an admin. He reinstated the content because you removed sourced content without adequate explanation. He has asked you to look at the Asher & Talbot, page 115, which says among other things:

This empire was a top-down enterprise: the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but rather kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices and a class of ruling nobles. Over time, however, imperial ideology and institutions were disseminated throughout its many constituent units and served as a catalyst for the growth of a new kind of elite Indian culture and society, one that was both composite and widespread.

which is very similar to what is stated on the page. I suggest you read the cited sources closely, and see if the article text is satisfactory. You cannot however challenge the content based on your own views and personal understanding of the matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

NO IT DOES NOT. IMPOSITION = IMPOSITION WHATS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

The original statement said,

"the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare, it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule; rather, it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices, and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule."

THIS IS WRONG. - "it did not vigorously suppress"

EVERY SOURCE SHOWS IT WAS IMPOSED WITH VIGOROUS FORCE. THEY RAPED, KILLED, GANG RAPED, FORCED JIZYA, OCCUPIED FOR 300 YEARS and burnt down and mass destroyed a large population of the Sikh race, among destroying many famous temples in North India. Example 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhota_Ghallughara Example 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadda_Ghalughara

2 of the Sikh Guru's were butchered and half of Punjabs crops were all burnt down multiple times by Mughals. They raped babies and cut open the bellies of pregnant Sikh women.

I can show under 200 examples all showing and verifying the source that Mughals IMPOSED their culture with VIGOROUS suppression the cultures it came to rule. JIZYA was a tax for NON MUSLIMS.

Reading your talk page going back to 2015 shows multiple examples of you being negative regarding Indian culture, your work is biassed. The sources on the page even verify that I AM RIGHT. - SumeetJi (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm submitting my second comment. I suggest in good faith that you delete all my historical work on medicine, technology and cybernetics I've ever worked on on this site, and delete my entire account and history, your bigotry against Sikhs is showing, so I'm leaving this as a reminder to leave your biggoted platform. - SumeetJi (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Kautilya3, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Fylindfotberserk. Merry Christmas to you too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sikkim made protectorate of british when??? (????-1947)

Hi Kautilya3, In Protectorate and British protectorate wikipedia pages, Sikkim is written as protectorate from 1910, But I disagree no treaty happened between sikkim and britian in 1910 which made sikkim a protectorate from 1910 onwards only, I think the starting date is either from 1890 i.e Convention of Calcutta where defining borders between sikkim and tibet made sikkim a protectorate or the starting date is from 1861 i.e Treaty of Tumlong which made sikkim a defacto protectorate of britian, so sikkim is either protectorate from (1861-1947) or (1890-1947) but definetly not the (1910-1947) timeline which is given in Protectorate and British Protectorate wikipedia pages, so can you fix it and either put the starting date from 1861 or 1890 in both the wikipedia pages... Hope you fix it soon and reply to me here... :) Swtadi143 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC) You there??? User:Kautilya3 Kautilya3 ...

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Kautilya3, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Heba Aisha (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Heba Aisha. Merry Christmas to you too. Hope you are enjoying your time at Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

R. K. Mathur (Ladakh's Lt. Governor)

Hi Kautilya3, Is RK mathur a member of BJP or not... If he is a member of any political party and if you find sources about it than add the name of political party in the table in his wikipedia page R. K. Mathur, I think he is most likely a BJP member I am not sure though.. Hope you reply soon after fixing/writing his political party membership name in his wikipedia table.... Swtadi143 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swtadi143, he is an IAS officer. Civil servants are not allowed to join political parties. But they may have political leanings nevertheless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok

Request for review user edits

Hi please review this user @Zeex.rice edits at 1988 Gilgit massacre, Durand Line and Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier this user editing articles without any "Original Research" and turning articles from "Neutral point of view" to their based view's, moth ago you you already told him here. Ytpks896 (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tin Bigha Corridor

Hi Kautilya3, For how long was Tin Bigha Corridor leased to bangladesh? In tin bigha corridor wikipedia page it is written that it is leased for some time but how much time? Can you find some sources and tell me for how long the corridor is leased to bangladesh?? Hope you reply soon Swtadi143 (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Swtadi143, sorry, I don't know anything about this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Death places in table of Hindu deities

Hi Kautilya3, I am confused why in most of major deities in hinduism in wikipedia have their death place not mentioned in their table i.e the "died" category only the "born" category is mentioned for example in Ram and Hanuman wikipedia pages also dont have their died place mentioned in their respectice wikipedia page table as oppose to christian deities like jesus who have their death place mentioned in its table i.e died in jerusalem, roman empire. Can you fix this and add their death place category in the table of ram and hanuman by searching the sources, in my opinion they dont have it currently because we really dont know where they died for sure as it is not mentioned in mahabharat or they just died like 5000 years ago, I am not sure there death place can be predicted by certainity, what your opinion on this matter, will you fix this??? If there is a certain sources or clues than you can add atleast death place in atleast one of their wikipedia pages, pls reply I want too see your reaction on this issue what do you think on this topic, can we write their death place with certanity??... Swtadi143 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can add death places if we can find reliable sources for them. I myself have no expertise in the subject. So I will leave it to you to do what you can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok I will try my best..

Ghizer

I note you have reverted many of my attempts to disambiguate Ghizer however this means that it now points to a disambiguation page - could you make them point to the correct article?— Rod ^talk 20:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which is the correct article in most cases. Knowledgeable people would need to do it. I will post a note on the talk page. They can of course go to the old district (which got split) but that wouldn't be optimal. I think it is best to let them to go to the disambiguation page so that people can fix them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking to the dab page may not be the most useful to readers, but if you think that is best you should follow the guidance at WP:INTDAB.— Rod ^talk 20:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that linking to Ghizer District means that it needs fixing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kautilya3!

Happy New Year!

Kautilya3,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy News Year indeed! With happy new democracy to tackle the darned new Corona! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Martial race

Hi Kautilya. Happy New Year. A question about this article - is it legit? What the heck is a "martial" race and, anyway, are the "races" in the list really races? --RegentsPark (comment) 17:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, Happy New Year to you too!

The topic is certainly legit. The British did have an idea of "martial races" and used it for military recruitment in India. "Martial" in the sense of skilled in fighting and "race" was used in a free-wheeling way to denote any group or community that deserved a label. Jats, Pathans, Baloch, Dogras, Gorkhas, Rajputs etc. etc. Many Indian Army units still have labels that go back to those days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Seems kind of silly to me to call these groups "races" or even "tribes". But c'est la vie. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Kargil War

Hi Kautilya3, Do you think Kargil War is status quo ante bellum or does it needs to be removed from the table of kargil war wikipedia page.. I was the one who added "return to the status quo ante bellum" there but do you think it is a appropriate term to be in the Result section of the table of the Kargil wikipedia page or should the term/point be removed????Swtadi143 (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What it says right now is the correct thing to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the current thing is correct.

History of Gilgit-Baltistan

Kautilya3, your revert of my recent edit was definitely a mistake. My edit was very carefully done and thorough, correctly many errors of English throughout, and was meant to be completely neutral. Please undo your revert. Thank you. 50.111.110.138 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide your responses to the issues I described on your own talk page.

I would also add that editing with IP addresses gives you limited capbilities. If you intend to do serious editing, you will be best to advised to create an account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, information from the following Wikipedia articles provides the rationale for changing the political status of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from "administrative territory" to "dependent territory." The Wikipedia definition of "dependent territory" would seem to fit the political status of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan perfectly. The Islamabad Capital Territory could be described as an "administrative territory" since it is an administrative subdivision of Pakistan, but, clearly, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are officially not such subdivisions and, therefore, should not be described as "administrative territories."

from the Wikipedia article "Azad Kashmir":

"Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is nominally a self-governing state, but ever since the 1949 ceasefire between Indian and Pakistani forces, Pakistan has exercised control over the state without actually incorporating it into Pakistan."

from the Wikipedia article "Gilgit-Baltistan":

"While administratively controlled by Pakistan since the First Kashmir War, Gilgit-Baltistan has never been formally integrated into the Pakistani state and does not participate in Pakistan's constitutional political affairs."

from the Wikipedia article "Dependent territory":

"A dependent territory, dependent area, or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state, yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area.[citation needed] A dependent territory is commonly distinguished from a country subdivision by being considered not to be a constituent part of a sovereign state. An administrative subdivision, instead, is understood to be a division of a state proper."

In answer to your question about the flag of Gilgit-Baltistan, I provide the following information:

from the Wikipedia article "List of Pakistani flags": Flag of Gilgit-Baltistan.svg / Gilgit–Baltistan territory flag / A traditional green flag, with the provincial emblem on the flag showing the Baltit Fort and the Skardu Fort which guards the Himalayas (including K2), the designated national peak in the back.

The dangling citation that you mentioned in my edit of the Wikipedia article "Nagar District" has been fixed. There is now a citation number shown with the names of the two tehsils that are listed in that article. Elevation data is not provided for most of the AJK and GB districts, so I deleted the few occurrences of it in the infoboxes in the edits that I made for the purpose of uniformity in presentation. Geographic coordinates generally appear automatically at the top right of the page in the district articles, so including them in the infoboxes would seem to be redundant. If there were some other concerns of yours that I haven't addressed here, please let me know. Thank you. Atelerixia (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Atelerixia, the job of an encyclopedia is to summarise the scholarly viewpoints, not to argue what the "correct" viewpoint is. You can do that by submitting an op-ed to a magazine or newspaper. Not for an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Correcting ping to Atelerixia. Also, you should note that editing without logging in counts as WP:Sockpuppetry and you can be blocked for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

One request

Hello Kautilya! I think one word "Naga" isn't needed in the page Pamheiba. In fact, Pamheiba, a historical figure is of Meitei ethnicity and not Naga. I don't know whether there is adequate reference or link to support his identity being a Meitei or not in the very Wikipedia page.

But at the same time, it's of no need to mention the ethnicity of the king of Manipur. Because since ancient times, Manipur is ruled by the Ningthouja dynasty, which is also mentioned in the info box of the page. So, I request you to remove only one word "Naga". That's all I want. Because this word will really demean the culture, history and the identity of the entire Manipuri ethnicity. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Haoreima. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information. I suggest that you do what I recommnded on the article talk page. Look for sources that contest the information. Then we can state the multiple viewpoints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Operation Ababeel

I left a message for you on my talkpage for you, related to User_talk:58.182.176.169#Nomination_of_Operation_Ababeel_for_deletion this. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Trial by combat" in Washington

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-college-vote-count-2021/h_827fbc8cf8d03aba895c3a2f858d12ec

2021 Washington D.C. Riots. It looks like the Wikipedians started writing it even before the riots started! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good coverage of the attempted rebellion from Morning Joe. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Parpola

A very interesting addentum to Parpola (2015), The Roots of Hinduism: * Parpola, Asko (2020). "ROYAL "CHARIOT" BURIALS OF SANAULI NEAR DELHI AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CORRELATES OF PREHISTORIC INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES". Studia Orientalia Electronica. 8: 176.. Thanks to this discussion: Talk:Kurukshetra War#Ochre Coloured Pottery culture. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Talk:Luke Letlow on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars

Thank you for your recent edits. Please see also my comments on User_talk:2409:4050:ebd:e958:4576:9964:b710:9a74. I was going to let the unsourced additions stand for the time being, but tag all of them with tags. I did take issue with this editor deleting vast quantities of existing, stable text, and for inserting new sections and paragraphs in the wrong time order, or in no identifiable order at all. I had the impression that this was an inexperienced Wilipedia editor, so I hope I was reasonably polite. Regards HLGallon (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

HLGallon, sorry I interfered. I will leave it in your hands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan peoples

I wasn't able to understand the CN tag. Isn't "Indo-Aryan" a widely accepted ethno-linguistic identifier simialr to Dravidian peoples? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fylindfotberserk, if it is widely used, there should be no problem producing a citation, should it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tawang

Hi Kautilya3, The locator image of Tawang wikipedia page is distorted upward in the table can you fix it, in the image Tawang pin-point is shown in china instead of inside arunachal pradesh in the table image...Swtadi143 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Please post on the article talk page to see if there is some problem with settings, either yours or more generally. Do all other locator maps look ok to you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 oh it looks fine to me now, before it was distorted I dont know how it suddenly became ok, it might have been problem with my settings anyway It seems solved now.

Hi Kautilya3, Regarding Edits on Sameera Fazili.

Hi Dear Kautilya3, i appreciate your response on my edits on Sameera Fazili, while i try my best to maintain Neutrality, i might be wrong somewhere as well, but i read about it from kindly check. thanks Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 20:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you are trying to write about the Biden Administration, it might make sense to say that he appointed two Kashmiri origin people. But putting that in the biography page of one of them doesn't make sense. There is a lot more stuff being printed in Indian newspapers. Do you think all of that belongs in Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

True, i'll add the information to biden's administration. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs)

But in order to add it to Biden Administration, you need to add information about all ethnicities. Mentioning just Kashmiris would be WP:UNDUE again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In general, taking some information that you find interesting and then trying to stick it in some page or other, is not the write way to edit content on Wikipedia. You need to pick topics that interest you and write what is appropriate to that topic after due research. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Population rank of Srinagar

Hello Kautilya3, I noticed that you have reverted two of my edits on the page, Srinagar as I had forgot to mention the edit summary. You may have a look here and see yourself that Srinagar city is on the rank 32 not on the rank 34. There were a lot of mistakes in the serial numbers of that article which were then corrected by me and somebody else. So with this reason I have to revert you edit. Thank you. Happy editing. Enjoy Snow! Kamilalibhat (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, that is fine. Please be sure to write informative edit summaries that provide the justifications for the edits (unless they are sourced inline). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes. I'll write. — Kamilalibhat (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ladakh Language

Hello Kautilya3,

There appears to be an issue with including the most spoken language of Ladakh. The most spoken language in Ladakh is Bauti (Ladakhi). We know this from the 2011 Census of India. If you want to include a reference to the Kargil district (which the current article doesn't have), I can easily do that. But at the end of the day, the predominant language of Ladakh is Bauti and it should be described as such; it would be disingenuous and misleading not to describe it as such.

Here is my proposed edit:

"The predominant language of Ladakh is Ladakhi, a Tibetan language. However, the Purgi language is the majority language of the Kargil district"

My issue with the current way the article is structured is the it underplays the significance of Bauti as the majority language of Ladakh in general; it should be described as the majority language of Ladakh because it is the majority language of Ladakh. It would be very disingenuous to undermine this fact. For instance, the article states that Islam is the main religious group of Ladakh when it is only the majority religion of Kargil district in the Union Territory. Why is this the case? Because it is true! The same logic should apply to the Ladakhi language per NPOV. I don't like double standards, and current page is a violation of the Neutral Point of View rule here on Wikipedia.

Hopefully, the language issue can be addressed in a fair and honest way that reflect the realities of Ladakh.

Best regards,

The Soldier of Peace (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Soldier of Peace, as far as I understand, "Bauti" or "Boti" is just another name for the Tibetan language (in all its varieties). Ladakh's variant of the Tibetan language has long been called Ladakhi and extensively studied. So we should stick to that. (We might need to create a page on "Bauti" eventually since it is causing severe confusion.)

I am happy with your wording for the Kargil district.

As for all other dubious content on the page, please add template:cn tags wherever dubious unsourced content is present, or fix it if you know better. Best regards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So... is it ok if I add my description with sources to the article? Thanks, The Soldier of Peace (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Soldier of Peace, certainly. You have full rights to edit anything you please, as long as it is verifiable and WP:NPOV. All the best. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir Valley

The page, though being a source of Geography of Kashmir Valley cannot omit the underlying Geopolitics of the vale in accord to Kashmir Conflict. The mentioning of Kashmir Conflict on this picture has also been issued in public interest.Similarly, As mentioned in the as for example : " Union territory of India". The above references for either 'Kashmir Conflict' or 'Union territory of India' can't be overlooked. Musadiq Mushtaq (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pandits

You are correct about the policy. I linked it however because I had to look it up and suspect that it is not a familiar term outside of South Asia. On the other hand, I suppose most readers of this article will be there. Your call, but I am simply providing some information in case you decide to reconsider. By the way, I was there because it was on a list of articles that need categories. I bow to your topic knowledge, which is no doubt superior; can you see what you can do about the categories, please? ~~` Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That is all right. Thanks for trying to help. Actually, I notice that you didn't link that many terms. So I reinstated your edits. On the first term you linked, please note that Pandit is quite different from Kashmiri Pandit. That article has serious problems that are not easy to fix. It is based on a single scholarly source that was aimed at gaining an in-depth understanding of Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir and assumed that its reader had a knowledge of the everyday facts about it. The page suffers from the same problems.

On the other hand, I don't see any problem with its categories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"... peoples"

The road is still long...[15] :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the "road", but that sentence is way too long! My head is stilling spinning! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we still have a lot of spurious pan-ethnic "Foo peoples" pages, usually based on language families. Sometimes, these topics do exist in the mind of ideologists (as in the case of contemporary "Indo-Aryans"), but some are the brainchilds of WP editors. And yes, the way from subject to predicate in that sentence is beyond walking distance! –Austronesier (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Sarasvati River"

Hi, I noticed you called my concerns raised on Sarasvati page as "attack". I flagged paragraphs in section "Introduction" as violating neutrality point of view by citing opinion of author which is not agreed by everyone as fact ("however identification with Sarasvati is problematic") Instead write "Some authors find identifications problematic". Second in "Objections" source quoted for "Ahoke Mukherjee" violates "no original research" as the 1) the link is not reachable, 2) it appears as self published. Third in section "Helmand River" as violating undue weight to Rajesh Kocchar. The blog cited is self published. Vishwajeet103 (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Vishwajeet103, contentious like those need to be raised on the talk page so that they can be discussed. You were questioning long-standing content, which has been reviewed by multiple editors. So it is already consensus text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya, the user is already blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

Kashmiri diaspora

Hi Kautilya, the existing information on the page that I edited is already biased. It leaves out the very important sentiments that I had added and that which you removed. I am British Kashmiri, so I am let down by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazaqat786 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nazaqat786, I am not sure which page you are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I think I located it. Note the edit summaries of the two reverts I made:

• You cannot modify sourced content with your own WP:OR
• WP:SOAPBOXing; please find reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources that talk about the organisation

Please click through the links given there to the Wikipedia policies. You can only edit Wikipedia as per its designated policies. It cannot be used as a personal blog site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that - I am not using it as a personal blog. How can I apply the the additional information that I added and you removed? The existing information is biased and there has been no WP:THIRDPARTY sources cited, so how come that information can remain? Also, by WP:OR, do you mean making myself as the citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazaqat786 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed the source (a scholarly journal article of Alexander Evans) as well as the content that was sourced from it, and replaced it with your own views. That is what I mean by treating it as a "personal blog site". That is not allowed on Wikipedia.

The second problem is also that you are trying to propagate the propaganda that Mirpuris are real or genuine "Kashmiris". On Wikipedia, the term "Kashmiri" is only used for ethnic Kashmiris. And this page only deals with ethnic Kashmiris. You can write about British Mirpuris on the page that is meant for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of rant.

I'm here because you accused me of ranting and threatened to sanction me. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word Muslim supremacist. But I have noticed a pattern of edits being made in various articles related south asia and whenever it's a topic that goes into Hindu muslim relations, I tend to notice a ton of edits that have massive communal undertones. I'm sorry I lost my temper. I have bad emotional impulses and it's something I've been trying to improve on while work with the editing community. I hope you can understand. Krao212 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, Krao212. But I am afraid the problem is not your "temper" but your prejudice against Muslims. I have no cure for that, but I would advise you to stay away from all Muslim-related topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally baseless to suggest that I'm prejudice against Muslims. Also violates "Assume Good Faith". I would suggest not to make such allegations...--Krao212 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Gateway of Gulmarg

Hello Kautilya3 and Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq, your comments on this would be more than welcome. Thanks. - Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Hey Kautilya3, now what are the next steps to merge that page. - Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There are step-by-step instructions here. Start a browser with many tabs, and work through them one by one. Then the harder part is to rework the merged content into the target page in a sensible way. Take your time doing it. All the best. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Hello Kautilya3 and Kamilalibhat, There is another page Narbal which states it is also called as Gateway of Gulmarg, Is it reasonable to entitle two pages (Narbal & Magam) with same title(nickname)? Or is it just a mistake? Thankyou Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to do that. It appears that many towns call themselves "Gateway of Gulmarg", but those claims are not witnessed by any reliable sources. So I would say, they can all be ignored. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3I guess it is better to remove the content from the pages to clear the confusion. Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Unsourced content can always be removed, especially if it is problematic for other reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq, Sorry for my late response. Since the claim is not supported by any reliable source, I would also suggest to remove this unsourced confusing text.- Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

False Accusation

Since I didn't hear back from you I'm following up on your statement that i'm prejudiced against Muslims. I'm again requesting for you to take back your words since they are defamatory and false and violate AGF. I don't want to have to take this up with the Arbitration Committee. Krao212 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

All right. If you want to pursue this further, you better start by telling who did you mean when you wrote in the edit summary: "right wing Muslim supremacists"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I conflated the Tribune with the Express Tribune. The Express Tribune is a Pakistan daily English language newspaper. My association of The Express Tribune with such a label was based on the fact that it has been reported that this newspapers has censored reports about pakistani officials knowing about Bin-Ladens presence in pakistan as well as reports that this newspaper has been influenced by the military. Upon closer inspection of the foreign policy article that mentions this, I realize that such judgements were premature and the picture is far more complex. Krao212 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/20/not-fit-to-print-an-insider-account-of-pakistani-censorship/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/business/media/times-report-on-al-qaeda-is-censored-in-pakistan.html

Even if you had conflated it with the Express Tribune, nothing about it fits the description of "right wing Muslim supremacism". Neither of sources says anything remotely like it either. So your comment is still far off the mark. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It was based off the fact that they had suppressed reports about Pakistani officials knowing of Osama Bin Laden's presence and similarly censored reports on Al Qaeda as well as supressing negative reporting of pakistans military. The foreign policy article and Ny times article both clearly establish this. However, is also portrays a more nuanced relationship between the press and the military that I overlooked. Your right that it didn't mention the literal words "Muslim supremacism", but it did mention potential ISI and military collusion as well as censoring a ny times report on al qaeda Krao212 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you want to keep arguing this for ever. I won't. Based on the facts you have mentioned, it is ridiculous to brand the Express Tribune as a right wing Muslim supremacist source. It is not even remotely close. So, basically, you need to stop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't deflect the issue here, you were accusing me of being prejudiced against Muslims and Im asking you to take it back. I've already reconciled with the person who reverted my edits. I plan on continuing to edit south Asian related topics regardless of religion and I hope to not be branded as a bigot again. Do it again and I will take this to arbitration committee Krao212 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding The Wire.

The source of Siddharth Varadarajan claiming the Sadhus were tribals is in his interview with News laundry. It was his reporter Sukanya Shanta who asserted that the victims were tribals which was subsequently picked by other news portals. What is the issue here as I have attached the relevant link for NL interview and the fact that The Wire issued a clarification subsequently. YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Did any WP:RS criticise The Wire for this? Or state that they did anything wrong? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Waripora Bangil

Hello Kautilya3, please have a look here –KamilAli 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, boy. As you noticed, it already get templated that it doesn't follow the WP:Manual of Style. You need to write prose text, not so many lists. And there need to be enough citations. The top list should be converted into an infobox. Please copy an infobox from another village in the Baramulla district, and modify it for this village. Then look for sources. There must be some newspaper descriptions of the village. A google search might bring up newsreports. You can look in the District Census Handbooks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

But I don't think I could do this alone. It seems to be very difficult to make that article encyclopedic. –KamilAli 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I can help of course. But take one step at a time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jai Shri Ram

Hi there! Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I've since undid the edit you made on Jai Shri Ram because the information I initially added was provided from the already-cited source. I take full responsibility for any confusion as I didn't provide any summary regarding my changes or where I got the information from. The information was present in the already-cited article from the Times of India, but the information in the Wikipedia article inaccurately presented the information from the article, hence I reworded it to make it more consistent. Hope that clears it up; all my best!! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCherryPanda (talk • contribs)

TheCherryPanda, thanks for explaining. Please make it a practice to explain your edits in the edit summaries. In this case, an appropriate summary could have been "expanded from the cited source".

The system says fewer than 5% of your edits have edit summaries. Good editors achieve 90% or more edit summary usage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles on Gram Panchayats of India

IIT Mandi!

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kamand_Gram_Panchayat and give your opinion. --Tagooty (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me Tagooty. I suggest you retitle the page as I suggested. And thanks for the great pictures! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Any idea how long it takes to walk from one campus to the other? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Will follow-up on re-titling after giving a day for any other responses.
Walking between campuses takes 45 mins along the PWD road (right bank of the stream), about 30 mins partly along the road and fording a stream, and 30 mins to walk along a rough path through the forest (left bank of the stream). --Tagooty (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Amit Shah & National Democratic Alliance wikipedia pages contradicting information in table

Hi Kautilya3, Is amit shah the current chair person of Natonal Democratic Alliance (NDA)??? When you go at National Democratic Alliance wikipedia page its chairperson in its table is written as JP Nadda but in Amit Shah wikipedia page in it's table it is written he is incumbent chairperson of NDA, Either the word incumbent should be removed and as his term ended on 20 january 2020 in Amit shah wikipedia page or JP nadda should be replaced by amit shah as Chairperson in National Democratic Alliance wikipedia page's table whichever is correct, pls have a look and correct it as the information is contradicting itself in Amit Shah and National Democratic Alliance wikipedia pages respectively.. Swtadi143 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I am interested in politics, but not necessarily politicians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bijbehara shooting incident article

Hi Kautilya3,

Could you have a look upon the article 'Bijbehara shooting incident' ? The user ArihantB had made unexplained changes and moved the title's article on October 2020 by citing policies such as 'neutral point of view'. I was able to revert back to the old revision but I wasn't able to revert back the page's title move. Could you have a look ?

Thank you. Wishing you a beautiful evening.

Imranqazi90 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Imranqazi90, I have requested the page to be moved back at WP:RM. All the best. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a great day. Imranqazi90 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 China–India skirmishes talk page

Greetings,

Please be aware that the anon editor you're interacting with on Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes (208.104.194.194 and 208.104.49.104 so far) is very likely a sockpuppet of Shulinjiang; the editor has a history of WP:TENDENTIOUS, and as of late has really taken to WP:BLUDGEON on talk pages. (As it turns out, they've shown up on the 2020 China–India skirmishes talk before under other IPs, like 172.72.222.15.) You can see the same sort of talk page behaviour at Talk:Shenyang WS-10 from Sept 2020.

Chances are if you don't add everything that the anon editor wants, they will - if you're lucky - just keep hammering away at the talk page with ever longer, repetitive, and poorly formatted ref bombs. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Point 5353, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drass.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)