User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Ram Mandir

Hi Chanakya,

Hope you are doing good. I have noticed a discordancy about a sentence in Ram Mandir article. There is a sentence in that article, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism. Actually, it is surprising to see that in the article on city of Bethlehem, the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, accordingly I tried to modify the sentence in this way, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama as per Valmiki Ramayana. Rama is a principal deity of Hinduism and considered as the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. However, an editor has reverted this edit. You helped me in improving the Turquoise throne article and can you do something to modify the sentence removing the word hypothized in Ram Mandir article while respecting the guidelines of Wikipedia? Thank you very much friend. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hypothesized" is not correct. I have changed it to "believed". It cannot be stated as a fact unless there is scholarly consensus about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It was made into hypothesized to avoid WP:CLOP of the BBC article and to avoid the weasel term believed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Herald, I am afraid you are not making any sense. Hypothesized. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "By whom" applies equally to "believed"; certainly the belief is not universal, across all faiths and geographies. The difficulty here is also the specificity of belief; that Rama was born in Ayodhya is a non-controversial statement within Hindu doctrine, but of course this statement refers not only to Ayodhya, but to a specific ~2 acre plot of land. "Purported" or "supposed" is probably more precise here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? We have records that the belief existed at least since the 17th century. We have testimonies saying that people set up a platform in the frontyard of the mosque and prayed to it.I don't see how terms like "purported" and "supposed" cover such practices. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? - What? No, that's the central question of atleast a few hundred (even more?) texts on the sociology of religion. I agree with V93 that "supposed" is the best word. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't be silly! The fact that the sociologists study the believers and beliefs doesn't mean that we stop using "believe" in the context of religion. Our page on Hinduism has 64 occurrences of "belief" or "believe", Islam has 49, and Christianity tops it with 88 occurrences. And, "believe" is the word BBC is using, which is a perfectly common usage. You guys are gaslighting me! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths is important. And, more to the point, numerous Hindus have rejected — and reject — that Ram was born at that very site; what maks their belief any less important? TrangaBellam (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also a key difference in pages about a given faith, in which belief is implied to be within the framework of said faith, and pages about (ostensibly) history or geography, where the implication is much less clear. Lots of places - including Ayodhya itself - have religious significance to more than one set of people. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "belief" in Abrahamic faiths is a much more stronger idea. But in Hinduism, with its variety of gods, myths, holy places etc., there are thousands and thousands of beliefs all around. The beliefs concerning Ayodhya, and this particular spot, are no different from the myriads of other places. Does everybody believe every one of them? Hell, no! But we don't go around saying "some Hindus believe", "a section of Hindus believe" etc. If you want to contest the nature of belief in Ayodhya, then please find some religous studies scholars who have studied Hinduism and see if they support your objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if agree that this particular belief isn't shared by all Hindus, then I fail to see why we shouldn't say that; indeed, if you insist that we can generalize that belief to all Hindus, the burden to demonstrate that that's what the sources do is on you. The BBC, for instance, says "many Hindus" in the most recent article I can find . Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The way how consecration ceremony has been watched by millions of Hindus all over the world and how devotees are thronging over to have a darshan of the deity can give some glimpse how much vast majority of Hindus believe Ram janmabhoomi as the birthplace of Rama.

Ayodhya's Spiritual Soar: Set to surpass Mecca and Vatican as a global pilgrimage hub, Times of India, 27 January 2024

Ayodhya's Ram Temple may draw 50 million visitors annually, to surpass Tirupati, Mecca, and Vatican,CNBC TV18, 24 January 2024

If there is a minority opinion among Hindus about exact birthplace of Rama then that can be quoted with valid Hindu scriptural references and ancient and medieval historical sources. In the name of minority opinion it is suggested not bring reports like "Babri Mosque or Ram’s Birthplace? Historians Report to the Indian Nation" which were junked as a mere opinion and nothing more by the courts. Here is a reference related that news.

Historians’ report on Babri mosque mere ‘opinion’: SC, Times of India, 18 September 2019

In the cross-examination before the HC, Bhan admitted that only he and Sharma had gone to Ayodhya prior to the study. He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal. This was the point the bench focussed on to refuse attaching any value to the four historians' report."

Bsskchaitanya (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• As long as the meaning is conveyed and WP:CLOP is cleared, I'm good to go with supposed, purported or hypothesized. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The Herald, copying sentences from somewhere and replacing words by synonyms is indeed what is called close paraphrasing (CLOP). Your supposed used of a synonym doesn't "avoid" WP:CLOP. It lands you into it! You are not making sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    • Kautilya3, I am sorry friend to have landed you in a unwanted controversy. Really, surprised to see your talk page now and it is very sad that you seem to be a victim of gaslighting. It is no ordinary task to counter Hinduphobia/Indophobia in Wikipedia unless we have some deep familiarity about Hinduism and India. Even India Today reported the western media bias in reportage on Ram mandir. Nevertheless, your contribution on my request is noteworthy. You are not alone. We will do our best to bring consensus. Take care.

    Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't worry. These kind of debates are entirely normal on Wikipedia. And don't be so harsh on your opponents. Everybody is trying to build Wikipedia in the best way they can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know that you are fine. Oh! you found my responses are harsh. Then please highlight them so that my reponses can be more polite in my responses. Its been a quite learning experience in Wikipedia. Can you have a look at this article Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism, Rajahmundry Circar, Balak Ram, Pondicherry Representative Assembly and Yanaon which were created by me and I request you to review to make any necessary improvements if required. I am more interested to contribute in Wikipedia on History, Philosophy, Hinduism and Linguistics than controverseial topics like Ram mandir that eat away so much of my time and attention due to my love and addiction for Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

References

FYI - mentioned at Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist)

I mentioned you at Talk:Mohammed_Zubair_(journalist)#Moving_Mohammed_Zubair_(journalist)_to_Mohammed_Zubair_(fact-checker) as you created Mohammed Zubair as a redirect back in 2022. Totally botched the ping, hence this note. Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

👈

Please stop this type of cold messages in my talk page. I have removed your content only twice.If I am in an edit war it should be the same for you as you have also reverted my edit with reliable source twice . I don't plan on any edit war. Also, we are already discussing in the talk page Talk:Thangjing Hill 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Look again! The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nepal–Sikh war, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, that is silly. I just reverted it to an older version that was cleaner. The POV edits that have been made aren't even grammatical! Have you checked if anything even verifies from the soruces?-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Can you stop the baseless accusations of edit warring when I am only establishing the WP:STABLE version? If you want to make these changes, seek consensus on the talk page. Wikipedia policy clearly states that WP:BEBOLD edits (such as yours) can be reverted, in particular to a WP:STABLE version, and in such cases, the proposed edits should be discussed on the talk page first. It doesn't matter that you personally think that such edits are "policy based": a dispute is a dispute. There are a small number of exceptions (see WP:3RRNO) but outside these, you are supposed to seek consensus on the talk page, not engage in an edit war.

Note: I am NOT asking for the page to reflect my other suggested edit (right -> far-right). I am only asking it to remain at the WP: STABLE lead until such time as consensus is reached at the talk page to change it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

Hello, Kautilya3. You have new messages at Talk:Dhaneshwar Mandal.
Message added 18:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just a positive message :) TakuyaYagami (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, vow! That you very much TakuyaYagami. Hope your editing is going well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with forming a sentence

To the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, under the India section, I want to add this: "Waris Pathan has been charged for his 15 Crore Muslims can outweigh 100 crore Hindus remark but has apologised on Twitter for the same." Can I? -Haani40 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Haani40 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't really monitor that page, which is in general terrible. To do it right, one would need to find a scholarly source or at least a newspaper op-ed, which analyses all remarks of this kind and puts them in context. The NDTV source doesn't say that it was "anti-Hindu". It just seems to be mindless bragging. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Nageshwar Temple article

Hello Kautilya3, I hope this message finds you well. I just came accross the Nageshvara Jyotirlinga article and it was edited to whole different temple and not the one which is commonly consider jyotirlinga in Dwarka, Gujarat. I request to review the article and can you make sure that it was did with the proper Wikipedia rules and not just by random. Curious man123 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Curious man123, I don't know anything about the temple. Please raise this issue on the article talk page, and see what the editors of that page might say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, as you said to raise to topic in the talk page of that article, i have raised and if you know anyone who can refer that page i request you to invite to them so that we can a proper debate about it over the topic Curious man123 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither I nor you should be "inviting" editors. See WP:CANVASSING. If nobody responds on the article talk page, you can revert back the edits that you disagree with. That might bring the editors to the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay Curious man123 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft

I have created a draft article here. I want to add it with that title as a section in the Second Modi ministry article but will it pass muster?-Haani40 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You had told me to start and use the Sandbox to experiment, so I have put the above matter here now. Am I allowed to delete this "draft" now (which I mentioned above)? Can I add it with that title, "Achievements_of_Second_Modi_ministry" as a section in the Second Modi ministry article?-Haani40 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

some Baklava for you:)-Haani40 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Haani40, thanks for the baklava! Making my mouth ooze!

To add even a section on this, it needs to be reasonably complete. And, it shouldn't be a laundry list. There is needs to be information. Note that ANI is seen to be highly pro-government. WP:RSPANI. So you need to consult other sources and see what they have to say about these issues. Also don't call it "achievements". It is the government's job to grow the economy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like too much to do. I will skip it.-Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversed edit for changes requiring no sources

Hi, I noticed that you reversed an edit by me and your reasoning was that I didn't include references and said to contact you on your talk page if you made a mistake. You made a mistake. I just rearranged information in chronological order for better readability and neither added nor removed any information, therefore no references are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:C402:54C0:C940:C8C5:B34F:D8B7 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:StoneToss 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 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Can this be used in the 2024 Indian general election article about the BJP's initiatives or will any sentence I add citing that be removed for being, "promotional"?-Haani40 (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Anything BJP says is WP:PRIMARY. You need to look for WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Can this be used in the 2024 Indian general election article about the BJP's initiatives or will any sentence I add citing that be removed for being, "promotional"? If not in that article, can it be paraphrased and added to the Second Modi ministry article?-Haani40 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper opinion columns can only be used for making attributed statements. See WP:NEWSORG. If they are established experts in a field and can be regarded as "scholars", that it would be different matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So can I type, "According to Shashi Tharoor, ............"? I plan to fill in the blank with paraphrased text from the source cited.-Haani40 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed, but it is subject to editor WP:CONSENSUS. Everything depends on CONSENSUS of course, but the use of PRIMARY sources, especially so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed deletion of Usanas Foundation

The article Usanas Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable per WP:NORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elissa Slotkin 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 03:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add User:Capitals00 to the AE

Please add Capitals00 to the complaint at the AE noticeboard along with Abhishek0831996. He has reverted you again, see this.-Haani40 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I add this sentence?

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the "Aftermath" section of the 2024 Bangalore Cafe bombing article?-Haani40 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But an important policy WP:BLP states that you can't name the accused unless they are convicted in a court of law. So, you can state "one arrest", and omit the name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone respond?

Can anyone respond to this?-Haani40 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That article (Article 370 (film)) says,

..... criticised it for distortion of facts, depicting narratives favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party due to the upcoming elections and for ignoring the views of the Kashmiris.

based on movie reviews and that sentence should be removed (in my opinion).-Haani40 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding a sentence

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the, "Dilution debate" section of the Homeopathic dilutions article?-Haani40 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I just read this, so I probably should not use that as a source!-Haani40 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by the US

This may interest you.-Haani40 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source to write that Kejriwal took money from the Ford foundation?-Haani40 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Please stay away from websites. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This says,

Arvind Kejriwal is therefore not a political threat but a security threat to this country, his main objective being to destabilize India to perpetuate US agenda

-Haani40 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In many different websites, I observe that many different politicians are accusing him of being a CIA agent (Harsh Vardhan, Captain Amarinder Singh, Prem Singh Chandumajra, Ashwini Upadhyay etc.)!-Haani40 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You can make an attributed mention of the RSN Singh comment. Please give full citation and add quotation. Political potshots are wrothless. Please remember WP:BLP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I add this?

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the, "Controversies" section of the Arvind Kejriwal article with a sub-heading, "Security threat allegation"?-Haani40 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a reasonable edit. Expect it to be contested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot.-Haani40 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can this be added?

Can the first sentence mentioned in this sandbox be added to the, "Relevant opinions" section of the Two-nation theory article?-Haani40 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that page say it already? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It presently says,

The theory rested on the view that Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians were two separate nations due to being from different religious communities.[1][38] It asserted that India was not a nation. It also asserted that Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were each a nation, despite great variations in language, culture and ethnicity within each of those groups.

which is not the same. It is saying something like they were already 2 different nations, while what I want to add is more accurate (see my sandbox).-Haani40 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't get into such fine-grained analysis. Your source is again an online encyclopedia with unknown credentials. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in short, you are saying that that "encyclopedia" isn't a reliable source right?-Haani40 (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to write about the historical past, you need books and journals. If you are only able to deal with news sources, you can only write about current affairs. But once again, if they make historical claims, you would need backing from scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, sure!-Haani40 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Biased editing?

A new user has changed the meaning of a paragraph with this edit. Is it justified? What can I do?-Haani40 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Since he/she added a new source, you need to read that and check if the content added/modified is in accordance with that source (or even with the existing sources). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Burjor Avari

I found your restoration of BLP-violating content at Burjor Avari surprising given your tenure and knowledge of policy. I know that you're aware aware of the requirement for such content to be supported by reliable sources, so please include your sources if you intend to restore it. Thank you, -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, you caught me in an edit conflict. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I knew there must have been something odd going on! -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

RS

Is this a reliable source for the Arvind Kejriwal article?-Haani40 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It was used in this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Newspapers are perfectly fine for current affairs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Haani40 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How to change my user name slightly?

How to change my user name slightly (I just want to change 40 to 39)? Will I lose my extended confirmed user rights if I do so?-Haani40 (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i would advise against it, because it would confuse people who are just about getting to know you. If there are strong reasons why you have to do it, please ask at WP:Teahouse. (I used to know it some time, but it was a long time ago.)

Congratulations on getting extended confirmed! But this also means that you cannot be considered a "new user" any more. You need to edit responsibly in contentious areas. If not, you can be taken to WP:ARE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Haani40, please read the Changing Username information page. It includes a link to where you'll need to make the request. You should not lose the EC rights on a rename. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both of you! -Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Article about India

I see that there is no mention of the Maratha Empire in the article about India (neither in the lead nor in the History section) but the lead of the Maratha Empire article reads,

The Maratha Kingdom was expanded into a full-fledged Empire in the 18th Century under the leadership of Peshwa Bajirao I.

- so should we not mention that India was ruled by the Marathas and that the English East India Company seized control of Bengal in the Battle of Plassey and then defeated the Marathas in the second and third Anglo-Maratha wars and established Company rule in India?-Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The India page is not expected to contain a comprehensive coverage of history. For that, there is a path on History of India. Any change to the India article requires WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, because it is a Featured Article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In the, "Maratha Empire" sub-section of the, "Early modern period (c. 1526–1858 CE)" section of the History of India article, it says,

The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule in India.

- so should that not be mentioned in the lead of that article?-Haani40 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:IN

I think you should mention the edit wars or proposed, "Request for Comments" going on in the Aksai Chin, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), Sino-Indian border dispute and India articles at WP:IN.-Haani40 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning, "Delhi CM"

I added a sentence here at the RSN Singh article. Now to that sentence if I add, "..... in which he alleges that the CM of Delhi is a security threat as he received money from the Ford Foundation" will it be a WP:BLP violation?-Haani40 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If I add, "..... in which he alleges that the CM of Delhi is a security threat. (without mentioning the Ford Foundation)" it may be more acceptable.-Haani40 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a major WP:BLP violation. In fact, that page is already terrible, because it has practically no biographical information about RSN Singh himself. The primary purpose of that page is to write about RSN Singh, not to reproduce his views. Wikipedia cannot be a mouthpiece for RSN Singh. We can only include information from WP:SECONDARY sources that write about him. To write anything about his books, you need to find book reviews regarding those books, and you need to summarise them fairly without WP:CHERRYPICKING. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at these changes. May be a case of POV. Skimming through I've seen atleast one instance of WP:OR in the second para - Bhutan and North Bengal are not mentioned in the accompanying source, Secondly the map used doesn't have sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Islam in South Asia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Islam in South Asia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in South Asia 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 until the discussion has finished.

Users123users (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kautilya3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Notice about discussion at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is the link.-Haani40 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kautilya3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nagaland GDP Agriculture

Hello, you can find the sector distribution among the infographics. I will make sure to use a better link Ly.n0m (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sikh monarchs has been nominated for merging

Category:Sikh monarchs has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of states with limited recognition 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 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists has been nominated for splitting

Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Malik-Al-Hind

I was going to leave you a message concerning this editor, but I see you've already "interacted" with them. Their addition of "India" and "Indian" to multiple articles appears to be POV. I will leave it in your capable hands. Stay safe, Kautilya3.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kautilya3. Thank you for your work on Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute has been nominated for renaming

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Review of incidents

Hello, I'd like to validate three temple destruction incidents and their sources with you to ensure their suitability for inclusion in the section on Persecution of Hindus>Present-day South Asia>Pakistan>Post 1971: 1) . (14 July 2023) 2) .(16 July 2023) 3) .(April 2024) Have a wonderful and blessed day! TRinket Lad (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sikkim-related articles

Could you take a look at this edit, it reads like WP:OR to me though I am not entirely sure. The editor has also added a large amount of pro-monarchy content on the Sikkim referendum article cited to a self-published book (publisher link). UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi UnpetitproleX, you know the Wikipedia policies. Any unsourced contentious claim has no place on Wikipedia. It should be reverted instantly. I encourage you to read the Ranjan Gupta source that I added to the Sikkim article, also discussed on its talk page.

I leave it to you take core of the WP:SPS content added to 1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum. If it is a notable individual, a brief attributed comment can be added. Nothing more than that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crazy Boris (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Moved by @Geardona to WP:ANI#User:Kautilya3. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Censorship by copyright 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 02:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war 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 17:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples 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 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

On kuki national organization(KNO) and kuki national army(KNA)

the sub-miltant group aren't armed wings but rather allies you have mistaken it by saying that it is their armed wings on both the pages of KNA and KNO CrackerCrack919 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Mohyal Brahmin

Hello, hope you are fine. Thanks for your logical comments on the talk page in response to my ping; I have removed the section though since the same was initiated by a sock! Cheers! Ekdalian (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

On Kuki National Army's number of troops

Hello, Kautilya3. I really appreciate your leaving me a comment, and watching the page and removing inappropriate edits. However, I want you to understand my last edit was to correct numbers: for example, this source said its troop number in Myanmar to be 200+, but before my edit, the article said it was 4000 while citing the same source I mentioned! I understand that it is natural for you to misunderstand my intentions in this edit, and regret that I should have mentioned this when publishing my edit. I hope you now understand me.

Thank you for reading this! Chirua (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chirua, thanks for writing a response. Please use an edit summary such as "correcting as per source". Otherwise if you modify sourced content without stating a reason, it is liable to be reverted. Thanks for all your work! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me advice. I will use an edit summary to avoid it. Chirua (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

About links and Manipur

I truly appreciate you taking the time to correct me. As I'm still new to this field, I'm prone to making mistakes. I understand it completely, and I will try to improve this in the future.

In the article on Manipur, I simply replaced the abbreviation with its more commonly known full form.

Tmanthara (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tmanthara, thanks for understanding. In direct quotes from sources, we cannot replace the wording. If absolutely necessary, we can put something in square brackets like so: [...]. In this case that wasn't necessary since "IOA" was introduced in the previous sentence.

Also please keep in mind that every occurrence of a term should not be made into a wikilink, as per WP:OVERLINK policy. Well-known terms such as country names don't need blue links. Also, you need to ensure that you are linking to the current page, e.g., Assam province, not Assam.

Happy editing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hello in the article,Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha, in the controversy section ,there appears to be an edit war with the user അദ്വൈതൻ. The said user seems to present the article targetting the Muslim community in a bad light.So I had changed the tone without changing the meaning to present it in a more neutral point of view.Also he is not allowing me to complete the story.After the incident have happened,the Muslim community have apologized for the incident.Also State SFI president have clarified they are not involved in the protests.He is not allowing me to put both these sentences in the article.They are credible sources that I have added for the both these sources.Whenever I put this he simply reverts it.The said used അദ്വൈതൻ have repeatedly warned of edit wars in the past and have been blocked.Could you please see the section yourself? If I am at fault you can correct me.I am still new to this and I totally understand it I can make mistakes.Tmanthara (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The editor is wrong to reinstate their content without discussion. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. If an edit is reverted, totally or partially, they need to discuss the issues on the talk page and come to an agreement.

Secondly, the section is too detailed and WP:UNDUE. The page is on a college, and one lone incident can't take up so much space, however controversial it may be. The issue needs to be summarised more succinctly. Please look at WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which describe these common phenomena.

I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page, and mention these issues. You can also address his edit summaries in his reverts, which are quite off the mark. As you recognize it already, it is a problem editor. You may need to spend a lot of effort in arriving at a resolution. Welcome to the club! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You can explain or caste your opinion for this move discussion of Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Requested move 7 August 2024.? 2402:AD80:13A:41ED:1:0:B23B:D3AA (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies 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 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Information needed for new articles on Zanskar villages

I've recently created articles on a few villages in Zanskar: Chah, Testa, Stongdey and Kargyak. These are fairly basic as there is a paucity of published material on this region. If you have any sources that I could use to improve these articles, please share them. Tagooty (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kautilya3. Thank you for your work on Battle of Walong. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I had to remove the bibliograph section.It was using an illegal redirector instead of direct links.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 22:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Tag3pilots, the above comment is meant for you. Please copy the Bibliography entries from the original page that you sourced it from. Probably Sino-Indian War. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

alright, I'm a bit new and still testing the waters. thanks for the comments Tag3pilots (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Reposted after discussions with Oversight team / Barkeep49. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism on a page you had edited

Hello Kautilya3. You had done useful edits on Brahma Chellaney. There has been some apparent vandalism on that page that I have just undone. I thought you might like to keep an eye on that page in case further attempts are made to delete content or add anything unsourced. Germanicguard (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Germanicguard. I don't have too much time on my hands right no to monitor all the pages. But I am happy that you are watching and taking care of the vandalism. Thanks very much! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3. That page has again been vandalized by the same user, who has restored his previous version. You had provided balance and objectivity to that page with your contribution. You are an experienced and good editor. And I leave it to your judgment to respond to this vandalism. -- Germanicguard Germanicguard (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Tripartite Struggle

Thank you for fixing the Umayyad Campaigns in India. Can you please take a look at "Tripartite Struggle?" The editor is relaying only on two sources, disregarding other reliable texts that offer a different point of view. Could you provide your opinion?Maglorbd (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

see this

removing "mythology"/ Doug Weller talk 15:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindu mythology

Hi, Kautilya. Thank you for warning Marvelcanon1 about removing "myth" and "mythology", but would you perhaps like to move your post to the bottom of the page, where they're more likely to see it? (I'm just planning to add another, sharper, warning, and they would go well together.) I think they may well not notice something up along with a contentious topic alert from February. Bishonen | tålk 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

JK assembly elections

A user is repeatedly reverting (, ) to add undue mentions of the lithium reserves (the user wrote that entire lithium reserves article) to the very lead paragraph of the JK assembly elections article, despite highly questionable notability and relevance, and there being no mention of the reserves in the article body. The assembly elections article is under WP:CT/IPA, could you take a look at this? UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Fylindfotberserk: for more eyes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX: None of the sources establish any relation with the assembly election. It is plain WP:OR likely to drive a certain narrative. Even if we have sources that explcitly mention it, it should be in the article body. Doesn't seem leadworthy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree that it isn't leadworthy at all and that there is little relevance to the assembly elections. As Kautilya3 already said in edit summary, it seems to be a case of WP:Lead fixation. Is the article subject to WP:1RR for being under CT/IPA? If yes, I think the editor has now violated 1RR, for they have reinserted that info back into the lead. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX:The editor has been edit warring and pushing it since 26 September 2024, and is on the verge to violating the standard 3RR. I believe the policy needs to be explained to them and asked to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page, per WP:BRD. They have expanded it in the article body as well, but skimming through, I don't see any connection between that and the subject matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: the continuous edit warring is problematic. Even with what has been added to the body (which I doubt is due even there), I definitely do believe it is incredibly WP:UNDUE in the lead especially in such detail and in the very first paragraph. Could you remove that? I would do so myself but I do not wish to edit war, nor do I have the time to do explain the policies to them at the moment. Thanks. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Again . Are these additions factual and leadworthy?

This guy is the sock. The other one, they are edit warring with is also a sock. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I know. I suspected as much. But, until they get tagged, I have to WP:AGF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

have a look at This cat, created by this user. Was active at Northeast India propagating those POV WESEA stuff. They got their ID-name changed recently. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at this removal. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Have a look . Some of their changes are apparently constructive, but I'm not sure about this servant→slave conversion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A new user added a large chunk of content here. Though with sources, the writing looks a bit journo-style. have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Important: Please update user script installation

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Mauryas

Your input would be welcomed about the discussion at Talk:Maurya Empire#Better Map Edasf (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nick Fuentes 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 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nazism/FAQ 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 10:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at this user , they didnt understand WP:RS. They keep inserting the word of their choice. Lullipedia (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ha, this was that DavidWood jerk. Still hasn't grown up much. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kautilya3,

I'm just alerting you to this discussion on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States elections 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 04:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Tag team

I think that I am being tag-teamed against. There is no engagement from the original reverting editor (Ratnahastin) at this section, unlike at the one just above, but another editor, without any participation at the discussion, dropped by and reverted me! I cannot (and do not plan to) revert because I will go to 2RR. Upd Edit (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am now alleged to be a Hindutva guy; your opinions on my editing will be valued :-) Upd Edit (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, at ANI. Upd Edit (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in 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 16:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

On Sanskrit inscriptions in a mosque

You might like this. Upd Edit (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya

I ginally understand, I think, why you use the name "Kautilya." I always wondered why you would use a reference to a 'prime minister' of Chandragupta, but it's a reference to encyclopedic collecting and compiling information. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

When you see an unnecessary block, you defend the affected user. When you see a need for help, you provide advice. You discuss edits with newer editors, explain possible issues with them and implement changes after highly constructive discussion. You do these things in your free time for other volunteers and the encyclopedia. I'm not sure if "random" is the right term, but these are acts of kindness you deserve a barnstar for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you ToBeFree. I am blushing... :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox US political party 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 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

.

Hello, Kautilya3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ophiophagus hannah Cobra (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Fowler&fowler. What a lovely greeting! Happy holidays for you too! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jannatulbaqi. Happy holidays to you too! Let us hope that 2025 will be better than this year has been! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request for Audrey truschke

Hi! I am proposing a new edit request for Audrey truschke. This edit will include an author named girish shahane who issued a critique of her work on aurangzeb. This seems like a legitimate edit since the review was published in a reputable indian news outlet called scroll in.

https://scroll.in/article/856178/aurangzeb-was-a-bigot-not-just-by-our-standards-but-by-those-of-his-predecessors-and-peers

I really don't see why this can't be used as a valid critique even if the critique isn't is a historian. I'm just wondering why criticism has to come from only a historian for it to be valid. Can it not come from a reputable news outlet? Hope to hear from you thanks............... Ker3243 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Academic works get academic reviews, published in journals. They get a lot higher weightage than those published in news outlets. History is a very ancient subject dating back to Herodotus and Aristotle. There is a long tradition of how to assess historical data, which scholarly historians follow. Popular historians know nothing about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

sir, I wish to connect with you about an topic, how and where can I do so? Virabukkaraya (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Virabukkaraya, welcome to Wikipedia! There is nothing called "connecting" with each other about a topic on Wikipedia. All editors are expected to edit independently. If you need any specific help with anything, you are welcome to ask me here on my talk page. Please start a new section on the talk page rather than extending an existing section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I am just unaware as to how a new section can be created. Virabukkaraya (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding a concern

As I see, there is an edit war going on with few pages, I wanted some help in regards to that. Virabukkaraya (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If your edits have been reverted, you should go to the article's talk page and write a message querying it. The people that revert edits are expected to explain their reasons.

If they were not your edits, as a new user, you can stay away from the edit wars. Somebody more experienced will deal with them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you, it’s just that - I had done a study before on that particular personality, I have seen a lot of mistakes in the article but people are fighting only about one aspect - him being a king or a Raja, one writes Raja and another makes it into Zamindar when there is actual important factual information that is completely incorrect - unattended, which hints, these people don’t care about authenticity but only wars based on their agenda. Virabukkaraya (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to make edits to the parts of the page that are not under dispute. Regarding the disputed parts, you can write your comments on the article's talk page, if you can contribute to those aspects.

In any case, which page is it that you are talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasireddy_Venkatadri_Nayudu Virabukkaraya (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any edit wars going on, or at least not visibly. Please feel free to edit it. I will put it on my watch list too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Its mostly the Raja being switched with Zamindar / King back and forth, I am writing notes with sources to start writing for many things including this, I shall re write the entire thing, but I would request you to somehow get it locked so people don't use it for the own purposes. Virabukkaraya (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your message

Yes, that sock is WP:DUCK. Chaipau (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fatima Sheikh

Hello @Kautilya3, I hope this message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention the need to avoid incorporating current affairs related topics to certain India based articles. Given the frequency of controversies in India, we should refrain from overwhelming our content with a 'Controversy' section based solely on individuals' remarks. I hope this helps. Thank you.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The controversy was a bit oversized when I came to the topic. It later fizzled out after enough sources were discovered. I am glad for it to be gone. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding mate!-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of Insurgency Information

See dude, I do not wish to go on an edit war with you over one article. The only suggestion I had initially was to not discuss insurgency in a page about a separate organisation as much as it goes against the guidelines of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. However if you feel otherwise kindly carry on. I shall work on other pages trying to improve Wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To prevent WP:UNDUE it could have been condensed to:

The term "Western Southeast Asia" (Wesea) is sometimes used to refer to Northeast India, including by some insurgent groups such as the UNLFW, formed in 2015. 🤷‍♂️ it isn’t necessary or fruitful to mention each and every organisation that ever existed in this planet using that nomenclature Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it will be best for you to move on. It appears that you are strongly attached to the subject, and are unable to deal with it neutrally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All my edits have been neutral and I’m not strongly attached to the subject. Perhaps you gotta consider your own POV too. But anyways, whatever I have contribute to the article is done. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Gaza war 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 00:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Lagankhel

There should be a Place name disambiguation page for Lagankhel, but I don't know how to make one. Judithcomm (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. You can copy an existing disambiguation page and edit it, or you can leave it to me to attend to it when I get time. — Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then.--Judithcomm (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to you.--Judithcomm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit on the page of List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent

Hi

Although i made a lot of changes, most of them were well researched and based on books suchas An ADvanced History of India by RC Majumdar and also Invaders and Infidels by Sandeep Balkrishna. Additions of Raja Bhoja of malwa can be treated as unclear. You may do your research to recheck whether any of the change was wrong else you may discuss each change one by one.

I can add references on each of these changes, if u allow me to revert and then add the references

One change in already available rows was that I added names of the dynasties to which the mentioned kings belonged based on the year of their reign and matching of name and other details, also rechecked from various sources Ntrikha (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ntrikha, when reverted as unsourced content, you are welcome to reinstate it with sources. However, there are two issues here. (1) Majumdar is a dated source. The current academic views might have moved on from what he wrote. So you should not use it to contradict later sources, unless you are confident his information is better. (2) The Invaders and Infidels book is a popular history book, not a peer-reviewed scholarly work (not WP:HISTRS). I suggest you avoid this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I am making changes mentioning the references, it is noticed that the entry for year 743 needs mention of what (whether the city or whole of Gujarat?) was annexed in the conquest. Ntrikha (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There was no such thing called "Gujarat" in 743. If Bhinmal is said to be annexed, that would mean the kingdom of Bhinmal was annexed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

References to Gurjaradesa are found before in 8th century. And for this page, we need to understand the differences between a raid (suprise attack, in these cases with motive to loot and plunder and return to home country) and a annexation (means add (territory) to one's own territory) .

By end of 1000, there were multiple raids but annexation happened only with three areas namely Sindh, Multan and Lahore. Mostly struggle for lahore and Multan ended in complete sense after the Battle of Peshwar in 1001.

Raid in Bhinsal doesnt imply annexation so the word is changed to raid Ntrikha (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at these changes. Seems POV. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it is WP:OR and a pretty poor one too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at these changes. Apparently, the user is making a lot of POV changes as of late. I was notified that it is an SP. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Came across this draft which seems full of OR and POV. This user is quote active here and has made significant changes. Maybe a old editor with a new ID. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. The author's user name is a perfect description of that article! :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah :D. Also, have a look at these changes . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Abortion 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 23:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Indo-Pak war 1947-1948

Hello Kautliya3, About the change in the article,Mohammad Zaman Kiani served with the Azad Hind till 1945, he later joined Pakistan Army. In this case, it is not suitable enough to use the INA flag beside his name as the war took place 2 years after Kiani left INA. CaptShayan (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello CaptShayan, thanks for explaining. Unfortunately, explanations are not enough to write content on Wikipedia. Reliable sources are needed. At the moment, a good reliable source has been cited and the tagging is based on what it says. Have you consulted the source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025) 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 16:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Azov Brigade 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 12:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What’s wrong with you?

Why did you revert other users comment on article talk page? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1286421217 — Cerium4B—Talk? • 07:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM, the guidance given in your warning message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Everything is okay with my reply. Restore my comment. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 05:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to rephrase it in a way that relates to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s already related to that comment. I mentioned a news related to Bhabesh then described why we’ll not add that news on that article. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 05:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look at Kakatiya dynasty

Hi Kautilya, hope you’re doing well.

A new user has recently added content to the Kakatiya dynasty article using this source from the MCRHRDI website. I’m a bit uncertain about its reliability under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines. Since inscriptions are typically considered primary sources, they’re generally discouraged unless accompanied by scholarly interpretation. However, this material seems to include some commentary on the inscriptions, which makes it unclear whether the document should be treated as a primary or secondary source.

Could you please take a look and share your opinion on whether this qualifies as a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia purposes? Thanks in advance! Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Some reminders on how WP:BRD works

• Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to WP:PRESERVE some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. Partial reversion, WP:PARTR, is better than complete reversion. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement. The "WP:Bold-refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative editing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".
• Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.
• In the edit summary of your revert, briefly explain why you reverted. You can encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.

Do you mind explaining how your edit followed these guidelines? You're not a petty-king of the article. Making a revert and labelling the edit as a "narrative" is hostile behavior. To quote from above: "A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did." I do not know exactly what you want to discuss about my "narrative" or what "evidence" you want me to bring up. If you have a problem, you can bring up your problem on the talk page.

Furthermore: "[Before reverting] be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit". So if you cannot express a disagreement with the content of my edit, then it is an invalid revert.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedious1, I am afraid you got it backwards. It was your content that you reinstated. The edit notice on the page says You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. Did you discuss it before reinstating? I suggest you self-revert. Otherwise, you are going to get cited for violation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Explorers of Ayodhya has been nominated for deletion

Category:Explorers of Ayodhya has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Update

Thanks and Regards, Chandan Ck17840 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ecrusized_and_unilateral_changes Soni (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Pahalgam attack

Hi Kautilya, hope all is well with you. Nice to see our paths cross once again. I made few edits in the 2025 Pahalgam attack page and would seek your help in improving the quality of this edits. For example, I have made an edit about reactions in Kashmir but there were issues raised by other editors about original research and unreliable source. I would appreciate if you can do something about it. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bsskchaitanya, I had put the Original Research template on that section last night. I suggest you reduce the excessive citations to start with, and then rephrase sentences in accordance with what the sources say. There is no need to have 6 or 7 citations for single sentences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated to this discussion

https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-probe-agencies-indentify-fifteen-local-kashmiris-who-helped-terrorists/amp_articleshow/120662335.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/15-local-cadres-helped-pahalgam-attackers-probe/articleshow/120655474.cms 2409:40C1:1:7820:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 For God's sake, please stop acting like an authority on what is considered Islamist terrorism, what is Hindutva, and what constitutes 'normal' Muslim militancy. People were not killed because they were non-Kashmiri—they were killed because they were non-Muslim. Muslim non-Kashmiris were spared. Even an African Muslim would have been spared. The fear of demographic change is itself rooted in religion. Recite the Kalma, and they will accept you with open arms and legs, no matter where you are from (unless racism runs deep). This mindset and the actions associated with it stem from Islamic theology. If you don’t know much about it, it’s better not to act unnecessarily smart everywhere. This is the very prototype of Islamic terrorism. I wonder what world you live in. And RS is not obliged to explain why it called a terrorist attack 'Islamic terrorism,' especially when it’s a given.

Also, it doesn’t matter if an organization is X but calls itself Y. Even the settler colonialism narrative can’t gain as much traction here as in the Israel-Gaza case, because this is essentially the same race versus the same race, divided by religion—unless 'settler colonialism' here is being used as a subtle implication of Hindu colonialism. 2409:40C1:56:2EF1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 After analyzing the discussions on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict pages, some things are becoming clearer and clearer. I have dealt with at least four editors with a pro-Pakistan point of view on that talk page in the past. But i have dealt with them on Hinduism-related pages, whether it's about some verses in the Vedas, pushing the "Hindutva as fascism" narrative, demonizing the Ram Mandir, whitewashing serious crimes by Indian Muslims, or relentlessly glorifying the Indian National Congress etc.

I've lost count of how many times I've had to intervene, fight alone and correct pages. It's not unbelievable, but it is deeply concerning how these individuals are motivated, alert, and outnumber people like me by at least 10 to 1. I used to think they were Indian Muslims or atleast marxists, and I genuinely tried to understand their point of view—what serious issues might drive them to push such narratives.

But after seeing their stance on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict, I’m shocked. I sincerely hope I’m wrong and that they are actually Pakistanis. Because if not, this is seriously concerning.

You are doing good work. Never been prouder-Fair and balanced. 2409:40C1:1B:6A98:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Dispute Resolution noticeboard, at this thread. Thanks. Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, the entire "Background" section, especially the paragraph about "settler colonialism" is clearly WP:SYNTH. I don't see how any of those sources have anything to do with the Pahalgam attack. It is improper editorial synthesis constituting original research. I couldn't find any article covering the attacks tying the cause or the background to "colonialism". Rackaballa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Settler Colonialism? talk page discussion Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH when that point is almost verbatim stated by several sources. Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding putting neutral articles in the Analysis section of India Pak conflict page

Please add the RUSI, Small Wars Journal and Breaking Defense articles in the Analysis section, their links are in the India Pak 2025 conflict talk page. They are neutral and RS sources with reputable authors, they are just not put up their as they say India had a upper hand, which some biased editors don't want to put. Hope you put it. Thanks and Regards, fellow wikipedian Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Kautilya3, have to looked upon these 3 articles that I've sent you. I see no reason why they can't be included in the Analysis section. What's your thought on it? Truthprevails999 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Mistakenly removal from analysis section

Hey, the Washington Post article citing Dr. Walter Ladwig has been removed from the Analysis section, May I know the reason/your thought regarding it. If it was by a mistake when you were merging paragraphs, kindly restore it. Thank you. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Since we have a dedicated paragraph for Walter Ladwig, whatever he said needs to go there. If you think it is needed, you can add it there. Can we put all the discussions on the talk page of the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Question for an editor

Hey; this is not about any edit you made. Also, I'm not asking you to edit on my behalf or anything similar (I don't have extended-protected access so it could seem that way). I just have a question for an experienced editor. Since you talked on my page before and also seem familiar with the article in question, I'm asking you.

In 2025 India–Pakistan conflict's infobox, is used as a "third-party" source for the claim that 5 Indian aircraft were shot down. However, when this article talks about the Indian jets, it directly links back to , which is just reporting Pakistani claims.

It also includes the clarification "Statements and views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs."

So, my question is if this actually counts as a "third-party" source for this claim or not? Thanks for your time. Anantanni22 (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

See my comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I hadn't even checked the author. Thanks, good to know! Anantanni22 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

In future, please raise all article-related issues on the article talk page. You can ping me if you need my input. In contentious topics, we need to be more careful than the normal editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I actually couldn't have raised it on the talk page because it is also locked to extended confirmed users. Probably fair; I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to edit contentious topics. I will keep this in mind for other articles. Anantanni22 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please try to add claims of John Spencer Tom cooper Michael Rubin and Damien Symon and Tom Cooper in Analysys and other places

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.au/indias-strategic-decimation-of-pakistan-resets-global-geo-political-military-matrix-despite-legacy-media-propaganda/

Before all these claims were rejected because admins says they are from Indian media. But now this is reported by a neutral media The Australiatoday SO this should be added. Australia Today is a neutral media and every news published by them will be fully verified by the cheif editors of Australia today before publishing. 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

in This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict

Redirect on Zomi Re-unification Organisation

Just to let you know that your revert on Zomi Re-unification Organisation (to Zomi Revolutionary Army) is not entirely wrong, but it was the original name for Zo Reunification Organization, as my redirect. ZRO/ZRA was created much later. See:

https://www.timesofmizoram.com/2017/07/zomi-reunification-organization-zoro.html

https://www.imphaltimes.com/articles/ethnic-churning-chikumi-style/

https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-6/mv6i1/hill-politics-and-political-movements-among-the-zo-tribes-in-north-east-india (for scholarly work) Chhandama (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will make it a disambiguation page. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Chhandama, this claim appears to be inaccurate. I have found the original resolution forming ZORO, and it mentions the name as Zo Re-unification Organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I even found a direct news source from that time. I am afraid the Zomis generate a lot of self-serving propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Have a look

Significant changes made today. Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Your conduct

How come you left me this warning for a single revert but made no warning for other 2 editors who made the reverts over the same content?

You should avoid making these types of edits altogether. Once an editor is alerted, you don't have to remind them again of the AC/DS.

Take some time to read WP:BATTLE. It is not the first time you are showing a battleground mentality and failing to assume good faith in recent days. Orientls (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You made a deletion, and when reverted, did it again. I don't see any effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS in the intervening period. I am sorry if you did make such effort but I missed it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is still a *single* revert. Yes I have made the effort to initiate a talk page discussion , and several users had already commented there. Orientls (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of the word "allude" in the article Thangching

In the sentence "The guardianship of the south western direction is alluded to Thangjing and the other directions to Koubru (north west), Marjing (north east) and Wangbren (south east).", I believe the word "allude" is being used incorrectly. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word to mean "suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at", which does not seem to fit in this context. I believe more accurate words would be/include "assigned", "attributed", "accorded", "associated with", or "given to". ZFT (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That word was used in the source unfortunately. I have changed it to "attributed" now. "Assigned" has a completely different meaning. Thanks for raising it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

About Kuki-Chin and Kuki-Chin-Naga Classifications

The articles Kuki-Chin languages and Kuki-Chin–Naga languages (recently moved to Zohnahtlak languages) refer to the same linguistic group. The earlier classification is inaccurate and not culturally appropriate, which has led to confusion and some disagreement across related talk pages. I'm currently working to correct this by gathering reliable sources, some of which I've already linked in the Zohnahtlak languages article. I suggest keeping the deletion discussion for Kuki-Chin languages open, with the aim of redirecting it to Zohnahtlak languages once sourcing and consensus are clearer. Phxlm (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't "correct" Wikipedia. Wikipedia represents the consensus of published scholarly works. If you continue to proceed in the fashion you have been doing, you are liable to get blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your response exposes alot about you..no wonder why !!

1)Wikipedia is open source and it relies on contributins from users so saying , you can't "correct" Wikipedia is not only non factual it's nonsensical and stupid.

2)Wikipedia doesn't represent consensus of published scholarly works...it is an open source encyclopedia and what your talking about is a standard that's not universally applicable.

I suggest you get your facts right and educate yourself with Wikipedias guidelines...and lastly you don't have the authority to block me...If you do , try and block me and see if you can hold on to your privileges...show some respect , maintain civility or quit your role. You're not gonna threaten me because you have some flawed sense of authority in an open source platform...im free to do what I please. this isn't your personal property and you don't have power over me...!! this is a response to your threat not an unwarranted response...stop threatening people loser Phxlm (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to take your source issue to WP:RSN and ask whether they validate your claims. If you try to railroad your problematic content, I am afraid you will face sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You can also for WP:3O since there are only two of us discussing on that page. Please refrain from personal attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Notice of dispute at WP:3O

I have listed the dispute regarding Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Newspaper-like statement at WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nepal studies has been nominated for deletion

Category:Nepal studies has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 02:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Nubra District

Hello Kautilya3,

I saw your latest update on the Nubra River, stating that it was part of the Nubra District. I've also been wondering about this for a long time. Here's my impression: - this new district was announced in August 2024, - since then, official field visits have taken place, I imagine to discuss the organization, - but I haven't seen anywhere that the creation of these districts had been formalized in a legal text or that it was already operational.

I probably haven't seen everything. But, in any case, in light of that, I thought we should wait a little longer to use "Nubra District" as the district name.

What do you think? You probably have better information than I do, and I'm interested.

Thank you very much, in any case, for raising this point, which I'm not sure how best to address. WikiDref (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been announced and appeared in newspapers. It doesn't matter much whether its administration has been set up or not. Even earlier it was a distinct subdivision called "Diskit Nubra". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In 2011 census, it was listed as "Nubra sub-district" (or tehsil), along with Leh and Khalsi (Khalatse).

It is a historical region, which included the Nubra River valley as well as the lower portion of the Shyok River valley. (Nubra means "western valley" in Ladakhi. I suppose it was western to the upper Shyok river.)

The "Nubra Valley" originally used in the lead sentence is artificial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time and insights.

I share many of your points, but I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement with everything.

My reactions to your comments:

- My understanding is that the Nubra district is currently at the announcement stage and not yet an official/legal reality. Personally, I thought it was better to indicate the realities rather than the announcements.

- I agree that, currently, it is both a subdivision and a tehsil, but that seems to me a less interesting hierarchical level for an infobox.

- In the census, personally, I understood "sub-district" as a subdivision and not at the same level as district.

- The toponym "Nubra" or "Nubra Valley" is terribly ambiguous. Literally, "Nubra Valley" is the valley of the Nubra River and therefore runs from the Siachen Glacier to Diskit, and that's it. But, I agree again, the regional name "Nubra" has long encompassed larger areas under this name (or even under the name "Nubra Valley").

- I haven't seen "Nubra Valley" originally used in the lead sentence.

Regardless of the starting point of this discussion, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a disambiguation page. WikiDref (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the original lead sentence said Nubra River flows in the Nubra Valley . Since the Nubra Valley was a link back to the same page, it carried zero information.

Since this is a geography article, I am not particularly concerned with whether the district administration exists yet or not. If you feel strongly, you can change it back to Leh. But Nubra should still be mentioned prominently. That is what counts here geographically speaking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. WikiDref (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Notice of dispute at WP:3O

I have listed the dispute regarding Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Despite Pakistan's official denial at WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Please maintain neutrality in your edits

Hello Kautilya3 Historygeof12345 (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Historygeof12345, I have no idea what you mean. I reverted your edit with the edit summary: That is a huge edit with lots of changes; please discuss them on the talk page, or split up individual edits of sections; do not remove any sourced content without explanation. None of those concerns were satisfied by your re-revert. You are now WP:Edit warring. If you persist, you are liable to be blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the talk page of 2025 Pahalgam attack

Your message has been moved from the voting section to the discussion section of Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack#RFC on "Settler Colonialism" in Background Section. The specific message did not belong in the voting section and could impeded the vote process. Considering its matter, it has been moved to the discussion section. It would be advisable to not engage in edit warring over this simply matter. For more information, read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Cheers EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Assistance request regarding 1837 Poonch Revolt Page

Hello Kautilya. I see that you have edited and added before to the 1837 Poonch Revolt page and written about the dispute of Shams origin. I am currently having a dispute with an editor Sybercracker regarding the use of contemporary British sources which claim Shams was of the Sudhan tribe and the opinionated historians that claim Shams was of the Maldiyal tribe. The editor Sybercracker claims that the British sources are not reliable due to the British Raj essay by user Sitush. I am willing to file out a dispute report about this but before I do I am seeking your opinion and mediation if you are able to provide it. Thank you Kharstvol (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I have offered a compromise on the talk page but there has been no response yet. I don't want to start an edit war or file a dispute unless necessary which is why i am seeking your mediation since you seem to be educated on that topic. Kharstvol (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alternative for Germany 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 04:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manipur tapes has been accepted

Manipur tapes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiMentor01 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Democratic Party (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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 06:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for input regarding Chauhan (surname) edits

Hello Kautilya3,

I hope you are doing well. I am writing to seek your guidance and input on the article Chauhan (surname).

Recently, I made substantial improvements to the page by adding more than 18 verifiable references from historians, professors, and other reliable academic sources. These edits aimed to strengthen the article’s historical accuracy and verifiability, in line with WP:V and WP:RS.

However, another editor (Ekdalian) has been repeatedly reverting my contributions without engaging in discussion or reviewing the sources provided. Despite my requests on the article talk page to at least read and evaluate the cited material, the reversions continued, which has significantly reduced the quality of the article.

Because you have deep experience with articles on South Asian history and have contributed significantly in this area, I kindly request you to:

• Please review the sources and content I added to determine whether they meet reliability and relevance standards.
• Provide your perspective on how the article can be improved with a balanced, sourced approach.
• Advise on how to address the ongoing reverts constructively and avoid unnecessary conflict.

I am fully open to correction if any of my additions were inappropriate, and I am committed to working collaboratively according to Wikipedia’s content policies.

Thank you for your time and expertise. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards, Yash | ياش | यशः 19:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Have a look

Please have a look at this. I have a hunch that this editor is a sock, but not sure whose/ - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess this edit gives an idea of their agenda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. this? or this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit War Notice – September 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Hyderabad massacres. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

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

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Tukde Tukde Gang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tukde Tukde Gang, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tukde Tukde Gang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Misuse of warning templates

I made only 1 revert to restore the content which is staying for almost 2 months but was removed without any basis. What makes you think it warranted edit warring template? You have also made 1 revert. Another editor made 2 reverts yet you made no warning for him. Can you explain? THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 01:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

ZDRX, the WP:ONUS is always on the editor wanting to make changes to obtain WP:CONSENSUS, which should be done on the talk page. Reverting to your preferred version without any effort to obtain consensus counts as edit warring, irrespective of how many edits you have made. The other editor opened a talk page discussion, which you have ignored. That does not bode well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No I did not ignore it. The discussion was started 5 hours after my last edit to the article. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, you needed to initiate the discussion. See WP:BRD for the recommended method of editing contentious issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

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

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Orientls (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit war

'Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's 2409!'

Please stop reverting the same content repeatedly in the Meitei people. This repeated action clearly amounts to an edit war and violates Wikipedia's editing policies. Multiple editors have already reverted your version, which shows that there is no consensus supporting it. Continuing to restore the same material without agreement from others is disruptive and unproductive. You should discuss the matter here on the Talk page and wait for a clear consensus before making any further changes. Failure to do so may block your account. No matter, how much edits you have made.2409:40E7:118:E366:7402:3DFF:FE24:490E (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Meitei people? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is an ongoing debate about whether to include Meitei Pangals as Meitei people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan In case you are wondering , thats not me .looool. I mean countless people are 2409. 2409:40C1:4F:53EB:C456:205F:59C8:A65A (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sati (practice) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of states with limited recognition 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Libel 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 11:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)