This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kautilya3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Edwige9, yes, the AfD nomination is certainly a good faith one. Other editors will look at the page and assess the claims. You are advised to take their feedback into account if you want to improve or recreate the page at a later time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I see that the archiving system on Hijab Row Talk Page isn't working that well. Posts inactive for more than a week haven't been archived yet. I think the OneClickArchiver bot is a manual system? Can you perhaps educate me on how this bot can be used? I saw you have used it in past on this page but I cant understand how do I use it on a talk page on which this is set up. >>> Extorc.talk();06:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Extorc, I am the last one to be able to help on tech. All I did was to follow the instructions listed on the OneclickArchivver page. It didn't work for a long time and then suddenly it did. I suspect that there may be interference with other tools/scripts etc.
On the talk page itself, the bot is set to archive threads that have been inactive for 7 days. Those are the only threads we should be archiving, when done manually. But I admit that I sometimes archive recent edit-requests too, provided they have been answered. Sometimes they crowd out the productive discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there are quite a bit of answered, or inactive sections there. I might archive them mannually. >>> Extorc.talk();11:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Advice on Copyvio
Hi, would you look into this edit made on Campus Front of India which seems to be copied from the source to a large extent and seems to be a WP:COPYVIO. This is the first CopyVio I have spotted so wanted to confirm and also wanted to know what is the appropriate way to warn the editor for those edits? >>> Extorc.talk();12:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, are we supposed to discuss Twitter here the way they discuss Wikipedia? No thanks. Let them be. If some of their folks come over here and open Wikipedi accounts, we will see what they can accomplish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. It is not the first time. He did so first when his page got edited based on The Caravan article, and asked his followers to get it fixed. They failed to do very much. So they continue to throw stones from a safe distance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Popular Front of India
I would like to add a statement on the page Popular Front of India that the organization has been involved in clashes with the Sangh Parivar over past years.
The sentence I would like to add is as follows.
"Kerala and Karnataka have often witnessed violent clashes between workers of the Popular Front of India and the Sangh Parivar.[1][2][3]"
Neutralhappy (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The authors are not displayed in the source. Moreover date except retrieved date is not shown for one source. So I humbly request your opinion about adding the above sentence.
Thanks. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
You can fix the citations manually. (I presume you used some automated tool, which couldn't parse the info correctly.) For example:
is showing the author (TNN) and the date in a badly mauled way. Such citations need to be fixed manually. It is quite bad to cite news articles without the date of publication. See WP:Full citation. It is not important to use citation templates, but it is important to include all the required information.
I added the content. I think the introduction about the the PFI given in the webpage without date of publication is going to updated time to time. Moreover the content in the webpage can be used to give an introduction about the PFI very well since it contains years when things happened. Moreover it contains more descriptive words about the PFI such as 'militant', 'extremist' 'Muslim' rather than 'Islamic'. So I want to include content from this webpage. By the retrieved date will be shown which, when the published not given, is enough, especially this particular case on this subject now.
Are you OK with me changing the term "Islamic" to "Muslim" in the fist line of page Popular Front of India.
So I gather that you don't have a citation that states the information you choose to present. In that case, the right thing for you to do is to make a proposal on the article's talk page and obtain WP:CONSENSUS, which is a requirement. For the census data again, if you disagree with the existing data, you need to state the correction on the talk page and obtain consensus. If you continue to edit war you are liable to get blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Newslinger. This comes at a great time when I am trying to gather up enough courage to add America's culpability in the Ukraine situation. Wish me luck! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I had a question, wont the first introduction of material by Venkat [3] count as Bold, with my removal [4] as Revert, and onus on Venkat to Discuss? Another editor had pointed this out([5], sixth paragraph). This is in reference to the ADE filed by Tayi.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I see. But that was a few days earlier, and you didn't say in your edit summary that it was a partial revert. So we would tend to regard it as a normal edit.
Nevertheless, trying to argue about who should discuss isn't productive. Either side can discuss. The earlier the better. As soon as it is clear that there is a disagreement and it is not going to get resolved through edit summaries, discussion is in order. A quick succession of "BRR" only blows up, no matter how it started. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, In your reply you have said "Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case." I am posting here to seek clarification from you, to be sure that I am not the one with the mistaken belief.
As far as I can see this case is about User:CapJackspr and not just about the article TekFog. The OP may have used examples from TekFog to show the problematic behavior. And I have shared more examples from other articles made by user CapJackSpr. Any user can bring examples about this user for the admins to review. Why then are you claiming that "C1,C2 C3 have nothing to do with the present case". One of us is wrong, who? Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Venkat, I don't think the ARE cases should be discussed in User talk pages. But briefly the scope of the case is defined by the original filing. If you want to discuss more, please use the ARE talk page, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not erase again sourced material agreed by several editors
Hello, I'm Jasandia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
We have had this debate for over a week on the article Baker-Gorbachev Pact -on whether to erase the article or not. The article, just as all I have added, was well referenced with a primary source (a US declassified memorandum on Baker-Gorbachev conversations) and a secondary and reknown source (Der Spiegel). After a week, the majority of editors agreed to merge the content of that article to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany -I opposed but that was the decission. So, that's what I have just done. The sources were also discussed and considered valid.
So please, do not revert again my edition using false arguments, there are sources in all I have added. Tell me what is not sourced there after reading the memorandum. I'm tired of this biased war editing in Wikipedia. Jasandia (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (CET)
Your recent editing history at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasandia (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2022 (CET)
You have reverted this edit several times. If you do any more reverts during the next 24 hours, you are liable to be sanctioned. You are the first who started reverting without going to the talk page or seeking any consensus. You are also under warning-- I did an inclussion in the article and you reverted first, yet you are reporting me. That's rich. Jasandia (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2022 (CET)
I have done two reverts and you have done three. You reached your limit. But I won't revert again, as long as you cooperate and discuss in good faith. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
No, I have done one edition, the original one (which is not a reversion): then you reverted (1), then I reverted (my 1), then you reverted (2), then I reverted (2), and here we are... Of course I want to cooperate. What I don't want is for you to erase the whole block. I erased one of my own editios which was actually interpreting on Gorbachev comments on 'not having discussed NATO expansion' and please feel free to touch or change whatever you feel. We can discuss in the talk page Jasandia (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you call it. Any deletion/modification of another editor's content is a "revert" as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
I don't know what "block" you are speaking about. Please limit your editing to the NATO expansion section. I haven't deleted any of it there and I won't. But if you mess with the Background section, unless it meets the Wikipedia requiremnts, it will be reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
In spirit of good faith I'm telling you this in case you want to check. I have not erased anything. I think it adds to the paragraph and explains a little the line "famous "not one inch eastward" promise about NATO's eastward expansion was made during this conversation". Jasandia (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, there are so many people doing so many edits that we never know where it got lost! I am going to wait for things to cool down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Can you take care of it please if you know what to do? I am generally scared of bots, lest I might mess things up. (I once archived my talk page into somebody else's archive!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, to tell you the truth, your argument wasn't exactly valid. It is not a government "funded" project. Even if it were, that wouldn't rule it out. For example, see Ocean of Tears. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi let me rephrase it. I dont think any movie with a clear agenda or bias should be promoted on any article of human rights it is out of place AhsokNilam (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ahsok, we don't WP:CENSOR information like that. But, in this instance, somebody was trying to promote the film as "truth", whereas it was only a fictitious account.
भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप से सम्बन्धित व्यक्ति या नगरों के नाम का सही उच्चारण
महोदय, क्या किसी भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप से सम्बन्धित लेख में उसकी मूल लिपि में लिख सकते हैं, जिससे उसके सटीक उच्चारण को बल मिल सके। संन्यासी (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:INDICSCRIPTS policy says that indic scripts should not be used in the lead paragraph and infobox. They can be used in the body, but you would need to obatain WP:CONSENSUS from other involved editors that they are really necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I said no in the "lead paragraph". The policy actually says "lead section". In the body of the article (which comes after the lead section) it is allowed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himani Savarkar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello Kautilya3, if you could, please look at the article on Battle of Indus and share your views on the content, I think some required information is being omitted, like battle site and composition of force, and the flow of battle.Maglorbd (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Maglorbd, I don't think anybody knows where it was. See, e.g., [7]. A lot of Ghengiz Khan history has only come down by word of mouth and the details are unknown. I would guess it was somewhere near the confluence of the Kabul river with Indus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya3, you are correct. one source indicates that it is at Dinkot, (J.A. Boyle in History of Iran Vol 5) another near Chotta Lahore (Raverty). both are guess work based on deduction. Does mentioning them allowed, because one editor removed this information. What I am asking is, can "guesswork" by scholers be quoted in wikipedia articles.Maglorbd (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This page is a pure promotional propaganda by a Right-Winger IAS named Sanjay Dixit. Not notable; full of trivia. Please delete this. I am removing some promotional stuff anyway.
Historical revisionism is happening at Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram. Hindu Right Wing is attacking on Mahatma Gandhi's legacy by claiming he had stolen the Bhajan. Also, Wikipedia was the first place to report such rubbish claim in the past which led many sources to post this. Clean it up please!
Hi Kautilya, sorry to bother you. I am leaving this message as some anonymous ip users have been making since several days unsourced changes to the Kishtwar page. Can you have a look into it ? One of them left me a message on my talk page insulting my being because I reverted their edits on the Kishtwari language. Imranqazi90 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
But only the critique of Modi is suffused with “Hindu far-right,”“Hindu extremism,” & “Hindutva” (which many Western scholars consider inseparable from Hinduism). — An earlier tweet
Kautilya, you appear to be familiar with the editor FacetsOfNonStickPans (DTM). Can you look over their recent edits and opine on whether such behavior has been observed before, previous concerns about a compromised account should be considered seriously, or if there is another explanation? And if have off-wiki ways to communicate with DTM, can you check on them sometime? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, his mood swings have become a frequent occurrence now. So I am not surprised, but I had never seen him go this far earlier. I appreciated your short-term block and hope that he might come back a bit reformed. I don't see any evidence of a compromised account. See these long explanations written only yesterday for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Hopefully the vandalism and PA part of the swing is a one off because (setting RL concerns about the person themself, aside) it would be a pity to lose a long-term editor in this manner. Abecedare (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Salam walequm bhai, good news is The Kashmir Files has been banned in Singapore on OTT please help to update as it is locked. Please bhai must put reason that Singapore as a developed country feels this is one sided story and not good for multi-racial country. We have more countries banning it.
(talk page stalker) At March end, they said it'd be released in Singapore on April 7th. A UAE ban was also mentioned. I'm actually looking for sources for the UAE ban and all of them seem to attribute to Agnihotri['s tweet].[1][2][3] Also, all sources say [in Singapore] the film "will be refused classification" and thus "effectively banning" — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
My talk page is not a Wikipedia page. I am more liberal about what people can say to me, unless they start wasting my time or engage in personal attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
My statement is not intended for your talk page or related to you in any way. The IP 220.255.220.66 statement on your talk page reveals his views on a particular topic, but as that topic page is protected he can't do so. Hence, it's necessary to inform him regarding the wikipedia policy for article writing. As he may affect the neutrality of other articles which are not protected. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to the captioned article. You seem to have reverted several recent edits of mine, for what you see as problems with the lead section.
Here is my response:
1. The article suffered from many issues - including inaccuracies. My attention was invited through the lead notice 2. The lead should explain what is "fundamental" to the rights - the Indian constitution's guarantee is not absolute and it is important to mention this in as lucid a manner as possible. 3. There are not 6 rights, but 6 groups of rights - the article seems to have copy-pasted from a previous link 4. The link to Indian constitution in the earlier version was broken. Citations were wrong and in wrong places 5. There were other rephrasings that were done
Given the substance of the above problems, I have reverted to my version. You are free to edit from here - but you seem to have blanked many other corrections along with what you saw as the problem.
Chancemill, the recommended protocol is WP:BRD. Please read that page thoroughly. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. The WP:ONUS for arguing for changes rests on those who want to make changes. When there are disagreements, the WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained.
Noted thank you - I am happy to re-edit the lead paragraph, for readability - but please do note that my changes had other elements. Chancemill (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We continue to talk on fundamental rights - but I have one basic question
I explicitly mentioned that I corrected this link - but you seem to have ignored this and conducted a mass revert.
It seems absurd to me that an article on fundamental rights does not even refer to the correct legal document of the Indian constitution.
I may come back on the rest (or I may not, if I find it too tedious) - but mass reverts are disappointing in throwing the baby with the bath-water Chancemill (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
Hello, I think not all my edits you reverted were about "history". I also added information about 2021 and 2022. Especially, this info is important for the lede in my opinion: Following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021, bombs that had been regularly used by militants against NATO forces in Afghanistan, as well as high-tech US-made weapons and night-vision devices, made their way into the area, leading to an increase in insurgent attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. The source I used, Deutsche Welle (DW), is a reliable WP:RSP source. We can also find more sources, if you agree to add the content. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)−°
That may be right. But that content does not belong in the lead. You are displaying WP:Lead fixation. The last paragraph is talking about casualties and you are introducing something entirely unrelated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The lede does not mention the important fact though, that Islamist militants were/are an important factor to change a political conflict into a violent insurgency. Khestwol (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
If we look closer, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was the same person who coordinated Afghan mujahideen militants (with help from the US and Saudi Arabia) during the Soviet–Afghan War. So yes, we might say that Zia-ul-Haq, and his mujahideen of different nationalities who entered Kashmir from Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, changed the political conflict into a violent insurgency. Khestwol (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I noticed you reverted my edit where I added archives to Yasin Malik. As far as I'm aware, there is no clear policy stating if archive links should be added preventatively or after an external link dies. However, in Help:Archiving a source it says: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation". Following this statement, I will once again add the archive links. ElementSix (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not a policy issue, but one of good sense. Those instructions are outdated anyway. archive.org archives practically everything we cite, and IAbot can always insert them when we need it. So there is no need to proactively insert archive links, which add nothing but clutter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That was the least I could do. If I had more energy, I would have joined the discussion. But it was moving too fast. In any case, I think you handled it well. And, perhaps learnt the lesson that maximum care is needed in dealing with caste topics. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
You must have noticed, change in attitude of mine from the last discussion, where both of us met the last time. I am becoming more mature in dealing with these things. Thanks for wishes.:)Admantine123 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you
The Barnstar of Diligence
This is for your exceptional work on Depsang Bulge. In my opinion a very difficult and complicated article to write. I checked who has written this beautifully detailed article I found that it is your wonderful contribution. The article is top class. Sir, keep continuing the great work. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Akalanka820. I didn't know you were interested in border affairs. Please do come and join me on those pages when they meet your interests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Sir, one request can the rating of this beautifully detailed article on difficult topic like Depsang Bulge be improved ? In my view it is A class or at minimum B ( depending upon rules which I am not clearly aware of it), the article is definitely more than start class. Should I take this on talk page of the article? Akalanka820 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, you can join the assessment workgroup at WP:WikiProject India and read through the guidelines. Then you can rate articles yourself. It is a good exercise to do some ratings, because it gives you experience on what Wikipages should look like.
This particular page right now needs some work, because I let myself get influenced by Chinese propaganda while writing it, much to the derision of my friends. Things became clear only after satellite imagery became available. I am working on it right now and will take a few days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, I think there are four possible dates of when Siege of Skardu started. they are 22 October 1947 when Pakistan invaded Kashmir or 27 October 1947 when Indian forces entered Kashmir or 3 December 1947 when j&k forces reached Skardu for its defense (aka its defense began) or 11 February 1948 when the first battle between j and k forces and gilgit scout began (aka the blockade) in Skardu. I think the last one i.e 11 February 1948 date is the correct one. but I want to know your opinion. I recently edited Siege of Skardu page and put the date in the table as 11 February - 14 August 1948. I am little bit confused about when the siege of skardu started so pls reply to me which is the correct beginnning date of siege of skardu.Swtadi143 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Recently, I saw a new article created named Jaitharia (Bhumihar) by an editor, which says : Jetharia clan of Bhumihar has its origins from a Gowala (Ahir) king called Rati Raut, who was the chief of Rati Pargana in northern Bihar.[1][2] The above are the two references used. I checked about Sachchidanand Sinha and what I found out is he didn't even had academic degree as per this article here [[8]], And SN Sadisivan was a teacher of public administrator subject giving training to civil servants, so don't know how reliable in this topic. The lines are almost similar as well in both the book but I couldn't find any such thing anywhere else. In line with all this, shouldn't it be corrected? I am asking for an input from you as I do consider you much senior to me in this field. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Akalanka820, you should review WP:HISTRS, which covers how to evaluate sources for history. Only trained academics who have a history of publishing peer-reviewed work can be allowed. In caste matters, all kinds of folklore gets put into books. As long as the books sell, the publishers are happy. We can't accept all such sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Akalanka820, Sadasivan is explicitly not allowed as per Sitush . See [9] Sitush says neither Sadasivan nor Vivekananda qualify for caste matters. Sadasivan does not qualify as per WP:HISTRS. Vivekananda was a scholar but he is a very old source (died in 1902). LukeEmily (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)(Kautilya3's talk page spy :-) )
Hello brother I want to let you know that kishtwari is not a dialect of kashmiri , although kishtwari is a language on its own , it is originally simpler form of prakit influenced at first by neighbouring western Pahadi and Punjabi and then after interaction between locals and kashmiri refugees it got influenced by kashmiri, and was written in takri script which was main script to write pahadi languages, all the claims I'm claiming are not unsourced these are on the basis of Siddeshwar verma linguistic survey he totally argued kishtwari as kashmiri dialect . 171.50.191.34 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Removed content from Hari Singh Page
Hi, I received a message from you. I removed a content for which no source was cited on the page regarding the blackmailing of Prince. Hence removed Mukulrajsingh (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be engaged in an edit war at the Nupur Sharma page. You have reverted my RS sourced edits twice and have reverted to a source not in the WP:RSPSS generally reliable list.
In addition, you have not WP:AGF by levelling accusations of "whitewashing".
Dear K3, I was pinged by Admantine123 on my talk page to correct the portion related to controversial stuffs to a 2-3 line on my talk page, even LukeEmily was tagged and I was told there is no problem. Now, the other editor is again engaged into changing things to his liking. I am sharing the diff of the communication to me. I think this behaviour is deliberately obstructive. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I am adding this diff here- [[11]], the concerned editor Hemantha never participated into any discussion and reverts edit giving very rude edit summary, calling others arguments weak without any participation. He isn't aware of any talk page discussion where I have mentioned that I was pinged to correct it into 2-3 lines. I have already shared diffs of it here. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Akalanka, sorry to be responding late. It seems that Admantine123 has agreed with one of your positions, but that may not be so for the other editors. So you still have work to do to persuade them. There is also no requirement that editors should have participated in the talk page discussion in order to make edits (reverts, in this case). But, once they are opposed, they need to engage on the talk page. I am sorry there isn't much else I can do in this case.
The best I can suggest right now is to first clean up the page: fix the typos, grammatical errors etc., remove off-topic content, and make the page readable. Then you can invite other editors to read through it and give their opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sir, the point is before engaging into complete reverting to his liking, at the least the editor could have responded me on the talk page where I was pinged by the other editor agreeing to some positions. Lastly, it would be better for the page if you can suggest something which you think on this topic on the articles talk page. The question is simple: Is this a community page? Or a Landlords vs Depressed class struggle ? In all the references except two village cases, it says Landlords of Bhumihars and Rajputs not only Rajputs. So, considering all this why should we just describe it here completely rather than on a more direct relevant page except some lines mention to it. This was the decided part by the editor on my page and I don't know why it should be a problem? Akalanka820 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
How to use this?
Recently i saw you corrected some references on the page. I am writing an another article. How to use this book, it was used on Bhumi Sena article and someone said that it's the wrong way to use as the name of the book is just a "collection" (something like that) its actually "Smouldering Dalit fire in Bihar" is the name. Admantine123 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The "Smouldering" article is a journal article, and it is cited correctly. I don't see a problem.
Often people cite a book, which is actually an edited collection, without identifying the actual artile and its author. To find that information, you need to go to the table of contents of the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Can i cite it like this? I want these pages to open in citation from this particular "book", as it can be previewed easily.
GEORGE J. KUNNATH (2017). Smouldering Dalit Fires in Bihar. Routledge. p. 89-95. ISBN978-1351381819. Retrieved 16 June 2022.. The name of this collection is " Windows into a Revolution: Ethnographies of Maoism in India and Nepal Front Cover Alpa Shah, Judith Pettigrew", i want this book to open, when someone want to view that content is sourced or not not the "JSTOR".Admantine123 (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I had made some edits on the Wiki Page for Hunzal valley and Shamshal. The Hunzal valley or Shamshal village comes under Gilgit Baltistan region which acceeded with India in 1947. The wiki page for these regions incorrectly state that it belongs to Pakistan. This region is part of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir which js part of India; this is the official position of the Republic of India.
You have reversed my edits citing that there is no basis for this. What additional reference do Wikipedia need to correct this mistake? Srivatsan (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I gave you a welcome message on your talk page, which has links to the Wikipedia policies. Please follow the first link in partcular, "five pillars". All editing of Wikipedia must be done in accordance with those policies. Your personal opinions are of no consequence, and neither are those of the Government of India. You should not edit any Kashmir-related topics until you have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Kishtwar
Nice kautilya you have proven that kashmiri are superior in this region I have written sourced history and why you removed Kishtwari cusine , unsourced are you, you just want to say that kishtwar and doda is of kashmir and kashmiri people you don't stay neutral . Tell me any one thing from the history which was unsourced go first read about history and then revert my edits. 182.69.61.80 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice kautilya you want to prove kishtwari as kashmiri dialect now tell me what was unsourced in siddeshwar varma lingustics, you don't have any reason to revert my edits , with out knowing kishtwari connection with western pahadi you are reffering kishtwari as kashmiri dialcet, I have a question do you speak kishtwari? Do you know this language very well? I'm a speaker of kishtwari and i know kishtwari very well , without knowing reality you are just giving excuses . 122.161.243.52 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It makes no difference what you speak and what you don't. All edits to Wikipedia must be accompanied by reliable sources, especially if they want to modify content that is already reliably sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Gogra, Ladakh
Hello Kautilya3,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Gogra, Ladakh, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
On Wikipedia, we generally use double quotes (the second form). Single quotes are used for any internal quotations inside the quote text. You can consult MOS:QUOTATIONS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The content i was added in the article of Bappa Rawal was well sourced, firstly i addd the page number regarding the title "Purana Purusha, so there is no sense in adding "page needed", that is well sourced citation
Then i removed "Different historians have identified him with various rulers of the Guhila dynasty, including Kalabhoja, Shiladitya, and Khumana."
Because it was unreliable information without any source, the Kaalbhoj was the name of Bappa Rawal, Shiladitya was his ancestor and Khuman was his son, it is a fact
Then i added regnal name which was used during the reign of Bappa Rawal, while actually his birth name was Kaalbhoj
Also i added Posthumous name "Shriguhil govarendra Chandra" , the posthumous name which was given to Bappa Rawal after his death, i even added source with that
Then i added his another name "Kaalbhoj" in led, and then added Udaipur State which itself founded by Bappa Rawal, the Mewar region was unreliable because it was known even before Bappa Rawal, there is not a single source who consider Bappa as founder of "Mewar Region", he was founder of "Mewar Kingdom" not region, the region was kneon even before him
I also removed "Arab invasion of Chittod" and added "Arab invasion of India" because he not only repelled Chittod invasion while he repelled Indian Invasion of Arabs, Battle of Ujjain is perfect example of this where Armies of both Bappa Rawal and Nagbhat 1st defeated Arabs (Ummayd Caliphate)
So, we are also discussing, i found many unreliable contents in this article and i explained those contents, the content i was talking about was not even sourced Takshak24 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which summarises the reliable sources. The summarisation is our own, it may not exist in any other source. But in order to verify it, you would need to consult the sources. That page has been mostly written and vetted by an experienced editor who is also an admin. But if you find anything questionable, you should raise it on the article's talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion, i raise this topic on articles talk page, as i did nothing wrong, i found many errors in article Takshak24 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Dhola Post
Hello Kautilya3,
I don't understand why you want to go back reverted.
" In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost called the Dhola Post on the northern slopes of Tsangdhar Range, in the right-side of Namka Chu valley, facing the southern slopes of Thagla Ridge. Clearly, The Dhola Post lay north of the map-marked McMahon Line which straight across Tsangdhar Range but south of Thagla Ridge along which India interpreted the McMahon Line to run."
All I edited some the facts from map,
As for the edited-content is right or wrong, everyone will judge by themselves.
At the same time, your reverted behavior reminds me of your position.
LuciferAhriman, on Wikipedia, the WP:ONUS rests on those who want to make changes to the existing content to argue for their changes. Retaining WP:STATUSQUO does not warrant an explanation. All page content-related discussion needs to take place on the article talk page. So I suggest you copy your post there.
Since you have refrained from writing edit summaries, despite my repeated requests, all edits will get reverted when one is found to be problematic.
Hey, I've been writing a tourism section for the Himalaya page for the past two weeks. I have a draft, would you like to review it? I could use some suggestions on improving it before I fill in the references and add it to the page. It would be greatly appreciated! UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will email it to you. And that’s ok, comments about general coherence, grammar, due weight etc are what I’m most looking for. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Please be warned, K3, that this editor has been making disruptive interruptions on the page, generally adding undue changes, promoting the Indian Himalayas, and the India-POV. If he dumps this "tourism" section all at once, instead of adding it in small edits, I will revert it. The editor has been attempting to bait me on a number of WP pages. I have warned them that if they pursue this further, I will be taking them to AN and asking for a topic ban, so sick and tired I am of their POV promotion. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
You can preach banalities to me later but I have a track record of NPOV and DUE behind me, a long one, in article after article. You don't. I have warned you. Himalayas is a high-level article. You are not able to edit in a DUE manner. You are not able to write coherent English prose. Cut you teeth on small article and learn some skills. But you feel offended, bristle, and feel renewed to cantankerously keep doing what you have been doing. In the process, you hold up progress on articles, and become a disruptive presence. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Take it to ANI. Or present diffs. Simply repeating “this editor is a pov pusher” with zero evidence every single time like a broken record and going to the lengths of appearing on several pages out of the blue to do the same is indeed harassment on wikipedia. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This is what I mean by UNDUE:
Please be warned, K3, that this editor has been making disruptive interruptions on the page, generally adding undue changes, promoting the Indian Himalayas, and the India-POV. If he dumps this "tourism" section all at once, instead of adding it in small edits, I will revert it. The editor has been attempting to bait me on a number of WP pages. I have warned them that if they pursue this further, I will be taking them to AN and asking for a topic ban, so sick and tired I am of their POV promotion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to someone (politely) asking you to not assume their gender is telling them you only did it once, and that them pointing out that you did so is “UNDUE”. Amazing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to reverting jyotirlinga to Jyotirlinga in the Somnath temple article? It is a proper noun and is capitalised as can be seen at Jyotirlinga. Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
If you had read it, you would have noticed what it said.
Proper nouns are normally invariant for number: most are singular, but a few, referring for instance to mountain ranges or groups of islands, are plural (e.g. Hebrides).
Occasionally, what would otherwise be regarded as a proper noun is used as a common noun, in which case a plural form and a determiner are possible. Examples are in cases of ellipsis (for instance, the three Kennedys ...
They are not in anyway similar to this concept. Rather the similarity is with "six continents", which will never be written as "six Continents". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Chandrabhaga and Chandra and Bhaga are three rivers
Hi, I hope you are doing well. As you have reverted my edit and added a reason "Chandra and Bhaga still exist", but the reason for removing the text was not about the Chandra river and Bhaga river. These two rivers exist in Himachal Pradesh, as I already mentioned there which eventually becomes the Chenab river later. There are some books references which probably have the point of view of the authors. But the authenticity of the facts is not verified there. However, the Chandrabhaga river of Hindu mythology also exists but in Odisha and I have given two references for it from reliable sources. So, the reverted edit should be restored. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
Called Chandrabhaga, the ancient river is believed to have existed at a distance of about two km from the 13th century Sun Temple at Konark, a Unesco World Heritage Site in Odisha. This justified the Chandrabhaga river is in Odisha. While Chandra and Bhaga are two different river located in Himachal Pradesh which later joins and forms Chenab river. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
Kongka Pass is a "border pass". That means a border passes through it. It belongs to neither side.
Gogra and Hot Springs are well inside Indian territory. They are "border locations" in that they are close to the border. They are not on the border.
For Shaze for Khinzemane, you need to provide a reliable source. The current zh name is from OpenStreetMap, where it was added clearly by Chinese editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Indian read "Dhola Post" in English, and read "Chinese: 多拉哨所" in Chinese language.
Chinese will read "Che Dong" in English, and read "Chinese: 扯冬" in Chinese language.
So does
Indian read "Khinzemane" in English, and read "Chinese: 兼则马尼" in Chinese language.
Chinese will read "Sha Zhe"(I need Verify) in English, and read "Chinese: 沙则" in Chinese language.
A year ago, I created this article and incorporated your suggestions for improving it. Recently, I came across some fascinating information about this village that I've put in new "History" and "Geology" sections. I would appreciate if you take a look and give me your feedback. --Tagooty (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Before this addition, the article was rated as C Class. Do you think it now merits a higher rating? If so, how to go about it? --Tagooty (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I upped it to "B". In general, you can add "|reassess=y" in the WikiProjet line, and somebody from the assessment team will look at it. (It may take a while.) -- Kautilya3 (talk)`
in relation to User talk:Mossad3. from the third sentence where I ping you, it's in response to An RfC is not the place to make arguments and I should also note that you have completely ignored WP:RFCBEFORE. A discussion happened in the response to the edit request, you and others participated in it. obviously it was the start, an "opening of a discussion". It didn't result in a consensus, and an RfC was started. I wouldn't think this was in violation of before. previously uninvolved editors giving new arguments in the RfC isn't a before violation either. regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]15:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
About the Gurjara kingdom. It literally mentions that Sindh and punjab were part of that kindgom. Also you can look up Gurjara map that covers regions of Sindh and Punjab, so i added the regions because it would be wrong to keep only two regions while leaving out the other two. Princesssasha2 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
May be not "irrelevant", but Wilders is a politician, not any kind of authority on Hadith and Islamic history. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Do not warn others of policies which they did not violate
You are being facetious in your arguments. Bräutigam's views are clearly relevant to the topic of debt trap diplomacy and so is the reception and usage of her views, which BBC was clearly party to in the incident described by the content you deleted. I have not engaged in any expression of personal views in the article other than a basic description of the event involved in relation to Bräutigam and BBC's involvement of her views on debt trap diplomacy. Should you find any cases where this was not the case, please explain why that is and how a change should be reflected in the article. This is clearly not a case of WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV imo and you have not given any evidence of my contravention of the policy other than that you believe it is UNDUE. Qiushufang (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Brautigam's views may be relevant to the topic, but whether BBC covered them or not is not relevant. If we were presenting BBC as a source, then a counterpoint may be necessary. Otherwise, this is just puffing up a section on "Counterarguments", which is already way too bloated. I also wonder why you didn't initiate a talk page discussion instead of WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
BBC is presented as a source. They themselves posed as a counterpoint to Brautigam's views. Do you consider reverting three times in a single article's history edit warring when you have done so five times over the course of the last two days? I did not go to talk first, which I have done now, because frankly I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Another user also questioned your removal of their content and sources in talk prior to me and you have not responded there, which does not inspire confidence. An admin said similar things you are accusing me of about this article and you questioned their reasoning. If you are so intent on improving the relevance of this article's content, why have you not done so to improve it as the admin had suggested in the template? This seems like a case of you imposing your own views of UNDUE on others based on your biases. Qiushufang (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark and TrangaBellam: None of them I had ever heard of. But the book being cited promises 30 battles, which we are going to get a steady drip of. I guess we need to tell the page creator that local histories like "Battles of Jaipur" are not enough for historical notability, and we need to see evidence in mainstream history books. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, dear Kautilya3 I hope you are doing great. I just went to Abhira dynasty page. The dynasty is of ancient age period. Some of the references added seem to be either directly copied content or references from anthropological writers ( not exactly ancient history writers) without any proper context to it especially in the lead. I believe the page needs attention of an editor like you. If you have spare time, do look at it. Thanks !! Akalanka820 (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Akalanka820, I have watch-listed the page, but I am not able to do too much at the moment. I notice that Pataliputra is active on the page. You can flag up any issues to him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
A article needs your attention Noon Chai and nationalists again
Hello Kautilya3 unfortunately the article has once again become a battle ground for nationalists a user named negative power Ranger who is now blocked for using multiple accounts has added the usual it belongs to India rambling on the article I would appreciate it if you could take a look and restore it to its previous neutral state as I noticed you have edited it before. Thanking you in advance. I rather not get into constant edit conflicts with the users ip address either. Taxia4 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Awesome! The suspicion did enter my mind but I doubted if Rallia Ram would have been still alive in 1950. Good to know! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I remain curious about what happened to Ram and his party. If Khushwant's musings (see t/p) is indeed about our subject, it appears that his family had migrated to India and entrenched themselves in the power corridors.
Asad Ullah Jan Khan was a leading Pakhtun Muslim who rejected ML's call for Partition, and won election to the Constituent Assembly of India backed by INC. A dissident against the NWFP referendum, his political career appears to have fizzed off in Pakistan. But, there is a total scarcity of information.
Ganga Saran was a Hindu trade unionist who had won election to the Constituent Assembly of India backed by INC and Unionists but chose to stay in Pakistan, and even remained a member of West Punjab's legislative assembly for two long years! The only member in Pakistan's Constitution Assembly with an Indian address (Delhi), it is not even clear whether he ever partook in the proceedings. No idea about what happened to him in Pakistan (or India - ?), either. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War, NATO expansion and Gorbachev
I've been following the discussion around the inclusion of an article on the final settlement of germany page of wikipedia and I must say I'm terribly confused. I understand this may be a little uncooth but I noticed you, Jassinda and LongLivePortugal seemed to be debating the inclusion or exclusion of a segment revolving around a supposed statement made by an american diplomat's supposed promise to move the NATO-USSR front "not one inch east". I was wondering if you could possibly elaborate on that topic for me a little, as I appear to have missed some information. I'm obviously a little new to this whole side of wikipedia, but I'm eagerly attentive to see what comes of this. All the best UnethicallyParadoxed (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
UnethicallyParadoxed, As the contemporary joke had it, NATO’s role was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.[1] But I don't think it was a "joke". That was indeed the real purpose of NATO, but today the NATO members deny it. They deny that it had anything to do with Russia/Soviet Union. Its purpose was, according to them, just what the book says, viz., collective security. So, even though the Soviet Union is gone, NATO continues to exist and expand.
When the time for German unification came, there were 2+4 negotiations held, among the two Germanys, and the four victors of WW II. In those negotiations, the western powers gave assurance to the Soviets that the unified Germany would be a member of NATO, but no more new members would be added. But once again, those assurances have been forgotten. A good summary is here:
More than thirty years have gone by since U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990 that if Germany remained part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after reunification and if the United States "maintained a presence" in that country, "there would be no extension" of NATO’s jurisdiction "one inch to the east."[1] NATO, of course, later was expanded to include not just the USSR’s former allies in Eastern Europe but even some former Soviet republics as well, and many Russians have claimed that, in taking in those new members, the NATO powers were reneging on promises that Baker and other high western officials had made as the Cold War was ending.[2] The Americans, as Gorbachev himself put the point in 2008, had "promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and Eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."[3][2]
That's a very fascinating point of view, but I suspect it's one that's somewhat lacking in impartiality. Granted I may be new to this aspect of wikipedia, but it would seem that many of your contemporaries disagree with you. I'd suggest that beyond the scope of being a purely anti-russian alliance exists the reality that NATO'S role as a defensive pact isn't inherently tied to any specific nation. It was of course founded as a response to the soviet domination of eastern Europe but I can't exactly fault those states once the iron curtain came down so to speak for jumping ship. Moreover, the war in Ukraine would actually serve as excellent evidence that these eastern European states had excellent forethought to pre-empt russian aggression. Playing the "what if" game as to whether or not NATO not expanding into eastern Europe would have kept the Russians at bay is sort of a moot point honestly, powers tend to expand into available space unless otherwise challenged, often crushing everything in their way, it's only a matter of how politely they do it. I'd like to state for the record and to keep my biases in the open that I am from a western state and do hold pro-nato stances, and while I'm not unsympathetic to the security concerns of Russia I also genuinely try to consider the security concerns of those smaller states that so often seem to find themselves at the mercy of Russian aggression, and if pressed I'd choose to defend the latter's rights over the farmer's. UnethicallyParadoxed (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
What should happen or what should have happened is not for Wikipedia to decide. All that Wikipedia can do is to provide accurate information and let people make their own judgements. From that point of view, it is crystal clear that assurances about non-expansion of NATO were given to the Soviet Union and, it was only with that understanding that the Soviets withdrew from East Germany. The Soviets were ok with a unified Germany being a member of NATO, but not any more countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Came across an interesting paragraph in the introduction of the Brill Atlas:
Considerable caution has had to be taken when using Chinese data sources, which are shown principally in the Google Map view rather than the Satellite view. All material in the Atlas has been geo-referenced to the WGS84 datum, although the Chinese Government does not permit mapping material that originates in the China to use this datum. Instead they insist that all mapping of China must be undertaken with a Chinese business partner, who must conform to Chinese law mandating the use of a specific “datum” as explained in detail by Wikipedia (“Restrictions on Geographic Data in China” 2020):
GCJ-02 (colloquially Mars Coordinates) is a geodetic datum formulated by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (Chinese: 国测局; pinyin: guó-cè-jú), and based on WGS84. It uses an obfuscation algorithm which adds apparently random offsets to both the latitude and longitude, with the alleged goal of improving national security.
This explains the drift between Google Maps drawn in China (by Google’s Chinese business partner Autonavi) and the actual satellite data, which as far as can be determined, uses WGS84.
As a result, specific locational data from Google Maps cannot be used directly. It has been necessary to find spatial patterns (e.g. the intersections of roads or rail positions etc.) in the Map data and adjust these to the Google Satellite data. In practice these morphological similarities are relatively simple to spot, and adjustment is easy, particularly in a rural context. In an urban context this is more difficult, yet the morphology of a religious site will often stand out. At the time of writing, OSM (OpenStreetMap) linear data (e.g. roads) is used always in preference to direct Google Map data, except for some toponymic checking.
As the toponymic locational data has been assembled from numerous often contradictory sources, there is a need to check this data by undertaking ground verification for all locations, though this is not something that will be undertaken soon.
Interesting. I never knew they were adding deliberate noise. India's Arunachal Pradesh maps are actually much worse, by the way.
I guess you figured out the Tibetmap sheet number. "Sengge Zangbo County" was apparently a former name during the Chinese administration. (I don't know why the name got channged back to Gar County again. "Gar" means army camp according to some. So that is very apt.) Despite their claims of pre-Chinese state of affairs, all their boundary demarcations are as per theChinese. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Shiquanhe (Sengge Zangbo), the current headquarters of Ngari, was also where Kyide Nyimagon started his kingdom. It was called "Rala" at that time. So, it is quite conceivable that the east bank of Indus was under his control, whereas the west bank was in the original Ladakhi kingdom(s). Below Tashigang, Indus is impossible to ford, and could have easily served as a border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for renaming Duoqing Cuo. During the past year, I have created 75-something Trans-Himalayan Articles and documented 42 of them over the map-based list. Unfortunately, many of these articles lack details concerning native names and other parameters. Could you kindly read through this list and offer any assistance or recommendations you have? RPSkokie (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Awesome! I will look through them and see if I can add anything.
For Tibetan names themselves, the KNAB place name database, which I cited on that page, is an excellent resource. I usually ignore the first spelling they give, which is generally Chinese-created pinyin transliteration, and is quite far from how English spellings work. The "bo" transliterations and "Eur" transliterations are closer to what we need.
THL has created a transliteration tool, transcriber, and a translator, which are also quite useful. For some places, the Chinese transliterations have become standard, but for most others, they appear quite strange, unless one is using Google Maps.
@Kautilya3 Thank you. I am only attempting to be precise in my editing by placing greater emphasis on the quality of the articles. I put 2021's list on my user page, which you can access here. RPSkokie (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Muslim conquest of India
Hello. You have undid my edit regarding the Richard Eaton's opinion on one the postulates of mass conversion theories. I contest the complete removal of the edit.
My goal is:
1. To elaborate on one of the conversion theories due to caste discrimination
2. Use a reliable source - in this case, Richard Eaton, as it was used already in the preceding paragraphs.
Richard Eaton was used in the preceding paragraphs to support the notion that temple destruction by muslim rulers was "not unusual". In the same source, he mentions that conversions due to caste discrimination has "no evidence and is profoundly illogical". I think for a neutral view, both should be included, which is what I intended to do. Not including Richard Eaton entirely on this theory creates a false imbalance and goes against the neutral stance of wikipedia.
If the language used by the reliable source - Richard Eaton - is harsh (such as use of words "profoundly illogical" or "no evidence" of postulated theory) I'm all for improving the edit to more a "neutral" presentation. I can also add statements by Richard Eaton in the short paragraph that discusses discrimination experienced by converted people as Ajilafs. Vajrasuchika (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vajrasuchika, welcome to Wikipedia. When an edit is reverted, the edit summaries states why it was reverted. In this case, it was reverted because it was off-topic. The page is about conquests. Please don't material about other matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya3, the page is about Muslim conquest of India (and it's impacts). If you are sure that my edit was off-topic, shall I remove the conversion theories, that's also in the page? If you don't remove conversion theories, and remove the edit which I have elaborated on a point made, you are not being consistent.
If you suggest where I should include that Richard Eaton's paragraph, I'll be grateful to you.
If you can't suggest where I should include that paragraph, while retaining the conversion theories in that page, I suspect that you are acting against the spirit of knowledge dissemination. Vajrasuchika (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There may be a case for creating a separate page devoted to conversion to Islam in India, but I am not confident that there are enough good sources to sustain it. Pinging TrangaBellam for any other thoughts they may have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are you not confident of the source by the historian scholar - Richard Eaton? Do you have additional sources which contradicts him? If you don't have those, are you not being extremely and unhelpfully biased?
Anyway, TrangaBellam hasn't yet responded. Can we have a progress on this? I'm not really looking for your approval on this content, but I believe we will go into unnecessary edits/undos to reinforce one's view point without having a rational dialogue.
For, TrangaBellam I put forth here, my argument again:
2. Although no conversion theory related to "conversion of Sword" made in the original theories, the point was made to negate it.
3. There was an elaboration of viewpoint on how Temple destruction in those times was NOT UNSUAL. This paragraph was made by quoting the source from Richard Eatons book - The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760
4. NO ELABORATION was made on conversion theory that claims conversion happened from lower castes to liberate themselves.
5. I studied the Richard Eaton book - The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 - which was accepted as great source apriori as the page has several inputs from the book.
6. Richard Eaton proclaims that there is no evidence that conversion happened from lower castes to islam and considers this theory is "profoundly illogical" and states that this theory was mainly put-forth by britishers and then south asian muslim academics and journalists by presenting islam as "liberator" in accordance with the popular enlightenment values, whereas the historical evidence suggests that the focus point was related to Islamic monotheism vs Hindu polytheism. He also mentions that lower castes still maintained the same social status after conversions.
Kautilya3 objected to above revision without providing a reason except that it was off-topic and then expressed doubts the source.
What are my next steps?
1. Should I NOT elaborate from Richard Eaton source at all related to the "profoundly illogical" conversion theory?
2. If YES, should I also remove the paragraphs related to his statements related to temple destruction?
3. If NOT, How shall I put forth the statement of Richard Eaton?
4. Kautilya3 suggested that I include in Islam in India?
5. But what about the conversion theories in Muslim conquest of India? Shall I remove them too?
I'm really asking for help so that we move forward.
It is accepted consensus that Hindus did not convert to Islam because of caste-oppression. I have not got any time to delve into the specifics of the challenged edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you know of any journalistic coverage on Kasab's family within the last decade?
Does any journalistic coverage exist about the background etc. of the rest of the terrorists? From what I see, we barely know the name (and aliases) and probable residence.
I saw your contribution to above mentioned article. As you seems know this sub more, I want to suggest you some missing this that should be incorporated in that article: Ban on Pakistani TV & film, so called singers and actors, IND denied visa to hockey, Kabbadi etc teams. Spy of ISI founded in their ambessy and other places in IND. It will impve quality.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rock Stone Gold Castle, my contribution was limited to cleaning up one section in there (on the Kashmir conflict). It is hard to write broad-scope articles like this one. All I see are little summaries of this incident or the other that particular editors seemed to care about. The big picture is entirely missing. One would need to scholarly sources or textbooks that cover the entire topic in its breadth to decide what should go in there and what shouldn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Reversion of Zhangzhung block quote
You have reverted my edit to the Zhangzhung article, in which I had set off an extended quote as a blockquote. Please share with me your reason for doing so. It seemed to me to meet the requisites for being blocked off, but I have no intimate familiarity with those parameters. Thank you. —catsmoketalk03:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
In this case, the extended quote is followed by indirectly-quoted information that is from the same source, so that the citation did not directly follow the blockquote, but instead followed the second sequential body of information from that same source. In such a case (and please pardon my reliance on you for guidance, as I'm not in a position to research Wikipedia Help guidelines at this time) what ought to be done? Place the cite after both the blockquoted info, and then again after the second, indirectly-quoted, body of information? (And if it doesn't suit you to work my quandary out, I'll follow up when I get the chance myself.) Thanks again for pointing out that a correction was needed. —catsmoketalk11:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Either the blockquote or the sentence introducing the blockquote needs to cite the source from which the blockquote is taken. If you can add it, well and good. Otherwise, I suggest you leave it alone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Hello, I am trying to add 1000 plus years of brief political history of Muslims. I know it is not religious history of Islam as there is not much to add as Muslims behavior in South Asia was mostly political rather than religious. So there is not much to add religiously. Last time, some users tried to add religious and political history together but that didn't correctly fully covered either subjects. Basically, they beat around the bush and did not do good job either way. What I am trying to do is add political history briefly that covers most of the era in five sentences thats about 100 to 200 years. What do you think? 2607:9880:4038:1A:84FE:F315:F910:2CE9 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
There is certainly known about the history of Islam in South Asia. The subject is just waiting for interested editors to study it and expand the article. People who are not interested in it should desist from adding extraneous material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Muslims elites did not act like good Muslims. So we are dealing with 1000 years of political dynasties that only cared about their power on the region. If you try to add ereligious history you would be adding personal history of saints and conversions. We already have section for that in the article. If you are interested in religious history then you are most welcome to make an addition there. 2607:9880:4038:1A:84FE:F315:F910:2CE9 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia prohibits original research. That page is on religion. There are other pages for political matters. If any political developments need to be described for the sake of covering religion, they can be included. Nothing else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned before political history I am covering is very brief just to show that Muslims rule wasn't religious in nature rather was very much political. So adding religious stuff in section covering political dynasties would be inappropriate as the only people who were really religious were Islamic scholars and there followers who converted and created millions of there followers on personal level and not state level. So we have conversions section for that to describe personal stories and experiences of those religious communities. 2607:9880:4038:1A:84FE:F315:F910:2CE9 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit uncomfortable with the topic. The biggest highlight of this supposed dharmic kingdom is that the king sent off his wife to exile because there were rumours? Or that he beheaded a shudra because he dared to do tapas? Just shows the Hindu nuttiness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Generally my main topic over here just now is 'Lakes in Bangalore'. Ram Rajya stemmed from this. Old revisions of the article for the Maharaja of Mysore Krishna Raja Wadiyar IV had a section called "Rama Rajya", later changed to "Reign". On searching for all the mentions of Ram Rajya on the English Wikipedia, there is a mention of the phrase by Amish Tripathi in a Wikipedia article about one of his books, "I wonder how many people would have actually thought through what 'Rama Rajya' is ...". However since the degree of separation is too much I won't be taking this up as part of the lakes topic.
Babones and you — correct me if I am wrong — appear to believe that since Modi came to power in a free election and passed laws in an open legislature, it is not objective of intellectuals to cast the duo as anti-democratic (any other charge is fine) on the basis of the content of the law. After all, it was the demos who had decisively voted to enact such laws! Not unexpectedly, these janatā janārdana arguments fell apart on scrutiny and scholars distinguish majoritarianism from democracies. On the particulars of Modi and India's democracy, you might wish to read this excellent analysis by Tarunabh Khaitan. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
You are side-tracking. The EIU ranks India at 46th in the world. V-Dem ranks it at 101st. Why is there such a difference? It is because V-Dem is purely reflecting the intellectuals' position without any other mediation. So the intellectuals, the likes of Tarunabh Khaitan, being frustrated that the Government doesn't listen to them, take it out on the country when they get to fill out the surveys. If the country gets a bad name as a result, they are only too happy. So, they are not being "partisan". They are just being pompous and self-serving.
As for your Khaitan, here is what he says about the CAA (a "bill" at his time): The BJP government tabled an amendment to India’s citizenship laws – hitherto based on jus soli principles – that was designed primarily to extend citizenship to non-Muslim undocumented migrants in the state of Assam, while permitting the deportation of millions of Muslims who failed to prove their residence in India before 1971. First it wasn't based on jus soli in 2014. It ceased to be so in 1986. He calls them "non-Muslim undocumented migrants", but no mention of the alleged persecution that they were fleeing. They were not limited to Assam. There were many more of them in West Bengal, and there were substantial numbers in the western states that had fled West Pakistan. And, "permitting the deportation of millions of Muslims who failed to prove their residence in India before 1971" is as per the The Foreigners Act, 1946. It had nothing to do with this bill. So much for law professors from big shot Universities. They keep making these half-baked fallacious arguments, and consequently get frustrated that nobody listens to them. Then they take it out on the country they live in by calling it "undemocratic". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of even more sidetracking, you are nitpicking and missing the forest for the trees. Khaitan is not a scholar of citizenship laws and the paragraph could have been better framed as: The BJP government tabled an amendment to India’s citizenship laws to extend citizenship to non-Muslims who had migrated to India in three decades since the 1971 war. Effectively, coupled to NRC, it facilitates the deportation of underprivileged Muslims who had no bureaucratic documentation to prove their citizenship.
As far as the amendment is concerned, that is a correct statement. But I don't see anything "undemocratic" about it. It has been on their manifestos for ages, and they campaigned for it during elections. Neither was there any disagreement with Congress about it. See [12].
The problems occurred because Congress would have liked to do it under the table, without putting anything in black and white. For BJP, it was an opportunity to get political mileage. For Congress and the Left parties, it was exactly the opposite. So, it was just political gaming by the two sides. The opposition was more experienced at the game, and they made a mincemeat out of the BJP.
The idea that it facilitates the deporation of Muslims is true in theory, but in reality it was just speculation that was put out as part of the gaming menioned above. The idea that non-Muslims in all parts of the country can escape "deportation" by claiming to be refugees from Pakistan/Bangladesh is very far-fetched. Even in Assam, nobody has been deported. To do so, the Government would have to prove that they are citizens of the other country. How are they going to do that?
The NRC idea doesn't work. BJP itself realized it by the end of the Assam exercise. They claimed that they would redo it in Assam but eventually shelved it. Trying to do it in the rest of the country is unthinkable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
There are scholars who believe that the paranoia about selective expulsion of Muslims is unfounded. Abhinav Chandrachud (who finds CAA unconst. and again, undemocratic) reasons that citizenship-tribunals will reject spurious claims of fleeing from persecution for both Hindus and Muslims in a righteous fashion and not only numerous Muslims but also numerous Hindus will be victims of the NRC-CAA juggernaut, if implemented. Sadly, as the working of Assam tribunals show, these bodies take partisanship on the chin; by the time, one's case reaches the courts of writ (HC/SCI), the victims have lost years in detention camps. And a stateless existence in camps that are more hellish than a prison is worse than being deported (which indeed won't happen). TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that Congress and BJP had the same plans. INC always had unofficial safety valves to negate the thrust of anti-migrant laws they passed and carefully balanced Assamese nativist demands with liberal and secular optics. Jayal writes,
The vulnerability of these people [illegal migrants; largely Muslim] made them eager voters and the avowedly secular Congress the natural party of choice for them. This encouraged the Congress government at the Centre to pass The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act (IMDT) 1983, ostensibly assuaging nativist Assamese sentiments by providing for tribunals to detect and expel foreigners, and cannily banking on local networks of ethnic solidarity to render such complaints largely irrelevant.
One of the leaders of the students’ movement that had led the agitation against immigrants now filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court claiming that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution, because it made it “impossible for citizens who are resident in Assam to secure the detection and deportation of foreigners from Indian soil”. The goverrnment [at the Centre], a coalition headed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), assured the Supreme Court that it was contemplating the repeal of the Act because [] the scale of the influx had implications for internal security. In May 2001, in a political reversal of the earlier situation, the newly elected Congress government in the state claimed that the Act was entirely constitutional and declared its commitment to its preservation.
The politics of the contrasting interpretation of numbers deported/not deported are notable. For the AGP and the BJP, the small numbers actually deported—1,481 persons of the 10,015 declared to be illegal immigrants— showed that the Act was designed to protect illegal immigrants. For the Congress, the fact that such a small number had been deported showed that the Act worked well in ensuring judicial scrutiny and so protecting Indians from being wrongfully deported. The politics of religious nationalism played no small part in these positions.
Unfortunately for Jayal, the Supreme Court found no merit in the IMDT:
It is further averred that since the enforcement of the IMDT Act only 1494 illegal migrants had been deported from Assam upto 30th June, 2001. In contrast 489,046 number of Bangladeshi nationals had been actually deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946 from the State of West Bengal between 1983 and November 1998. .... It is also averred that there is no justification in the application of the IMDT Act to the State of Assam when the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 are quite effective for detection and deportation of illegal migrants (foreigners) which is applicable to the rest of the country.
I believe that the IMDT was basically a way for Congress to cheat Assam by appearing to help them, while actually subverting the entire process. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The subversion was a good choice. The court was oblivious of the fact that India cannot afford to detain and/or deport illegal migrants without a significant false-positive rate. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
On some reading, it is indeed true that the CAA was crafted to primarily legalize the Hindu illegal migrants in Assam. Multiple scholars and contemporaneous reporters note that the ammendment (then, unsuccessful) was floated as a result of the Supreme Court directing stricter explusion of migrants in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015).
there were substantial numbers in the western states that had fled West Pakistan is true but there was already an ammendment in 2004 that not only prohibited treating them as illegal migrants but also conferred the Magistrates of Gujarat and Rajasthan with absolute discretion to grant citizenship on continued stay of five years. Someone who has fled West Pakistan in 2014 (the end date of CAA) would stand a chance of being naturalised in 2019 (when CAA was finally passed) under the 2004 regulation! Showing them as potential beneficiaries of the new citizenship regime is technically true but makes little sense; indeed, over 15,000 of estimated 17,000 refugees from West Pak has been granted citizenship under the 2004 scheme. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is what we say about 1986: The government also agreed to identify all migrants that arrived afterwards, remove their names from the electoral rolls, and expel them from the country. So the government that agreed to expel them isn't "majoritarian". A government that threatens to implement the agreement becomes "majoritarian"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not see the government in 1986 trying to confer citizensip upon all non-Muslim migrants before trying to expel the illegal migrants but maybe, I have missed it! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course, Congress would never do that. If BJP is "majoritarian", Congress is "minoritarian". It was Congress that created the probem in the first place, by facilitating the influx of illegal migrants and using them as vote banks for decades. In 2003, a beginning was made, but BJP lost power soon afterwards. And Congress, which came to power, ignored it for the next decade. Meanwhile, the problem grew to astronomical proportions in the decades following 2000. But, now, I believe it is mostly gone. The Bangladeshi economy picked up. So there aren't very many illegal migrants coming in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Before 1971, it was generally believed that non-Muslims fleeing East Pakistan were "refugees". They registered at the entry point, and got visas and citizenship in due course. (I talked to one such person in detail personally.) After 1971, India wanted to pretend that Bangladesh had become a secular country and, so, both Muslims and non-Muslims had to enter illegally. The CPI in Bengal and Congess in Assam facilitated these illegal entries and used the migrants as their vote banks, irrespective of their religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, you think "imp readability" as an adequate edit summary for this edit? It is not. You have altered the meaning of the meaning of the content and misled the reader. Please don't do it again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Bolding existing text and changing sloppy, un-encyclopedic english to encyclopedic wording while retaining the same meaning is not changing content, let alone misleading readers. I'd advise you to avoid throwing around unsubstantiated allegations of maliciousness, lest disciplinary action be taken against you. Re12345 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
Your recent editing history at Hinduism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have once again reverted my edits.[15]. This was properly cited and cite-quoted. I am asking you to follow the Wikipedia principles of collaborative editing and abjure WP:OWN. Chaipau (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jasandia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanjeev Sanyal § COI edit requests. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Krish | Talk To Me 07:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
_Dhauladhar_Ranges_in_Kangra_velley.jpg)
You seem to be engaged in an edit war at the Nupur Sharma page. You have reverted my RS sourced edits twice and have reverted to a source not in the WP:RSPSS generally reliable list.
India Yes, 
People's Republic of China No
.png)
