User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Regarding Meitei Pangals inclusion as Meitei People

Hi, @Kautilya3:, I included Meitei Pangals under Meitei people as no reliable sources were provided to show that they are a separate ethnic group. If you have any objections supported by verifiable sources, I will be happy to discuss and work together to improve the page. Thank you! Have a good day! Dreamer765 (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Dreamer765, that is not really appropriate. Since I have disputed it on the talk page, you need to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS before making changes. Moreover, the infobox cannot be modified before the article body is.

You are welcome to propose WP:NPOV content on the talk page, summarising all the viewpoints, and then we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Admin, need your review on Article 370 & support on revert made by controversial admin Black Kite

Hi Admin, I noticed user: Black Kite; reverted all my edits in the summary deceptive edits, which is highly misleading and inappropriate.

This admin kept various narrative, claims that the government or ruling ministry promoting/ endorsing the movie. Various criticism on government policy and views. Claiming Pakistan never attacked Kashmir leading to Raja's decision and other views. The article for readers looks one-sided biased opinions of ones against Article 370.

Neutral plot summary and introduction edits, fluffy reviews edits were reverted conveniently. SakuraSmart (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi SakuraSmart, I am not an admin. To find out whether some on is an admin, please go their user page, and under the "User" manu, look for "User groups".

Black Kite, on the other hand, is a very experienced admin, and their edits would be very well justified. Please pay attention to what they said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose this is the edit they characterised as carrying "deceptive edit summaries". The MOS:LEAD is a summary of the article, which will by nature repeat the content explained in the article with more detail. You cannot remove it.

In general, you cannot make large-scale changes like that on a well-established page. Please make small edits, one section at a time, and give clear justifications for them n the edit summaries. If they are reverted, you need to discuss them on the talk page. Your edit was too large to even discuss. Please pick one specific issue at a time and raise it on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I made large edits to avoid spamming. Doing multiple edits on fluffy exaggerated information, felt spamming, hence I one edit I made changes. I will keep that in mind. However, could you review my edits in general, and advice if product/ outcome of my edits were anywhere inappropriate or felt biased. As overall, I felt in cleansed/ maintained the article in professional tone. Your experience opinion will help me SakuraSmart (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not enough to just do the "right" edits, but you also need to do them in the right way. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everybody needs to be able to see and understand what changes you are making and why.

The condensation of the plot section are probably ok. The plot section right now is way too detailed.

Altering and condensing the "Historical accuracy" section is not ok. Anything you do that section would be contentious and you need to be really careful about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs, getting your POV, I will be mindful henceforth. Historical details is deemed propoganda as per current article notes, and yes plot summary is way too detailed. Therefore, I thought to edit it. It looks one-way traffic at this moment, plus I think for movie it's too much detail.

Still, I respect your overall opinion and time. SakuraSmart (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirpur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting 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) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Kautilya3, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, KhantWiki (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

KhantWiki (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you KhantWiki! Happy Holidays to you too! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Dhurandhar Rotten Tomatoes

Hello Kautilya3. Happy Holidays to you. I wanted to point out that, for all film rotten tomatoes ratings, only critics rating is accepted to be added on the page. That is what almost all Bollywood films and I believe others accept as well. Audience reviews and ratings are not accepted. RangersRus (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know. Happy Holidays! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consistent Vandalism by Kautilya3. tony 04:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(This notice is being left on behalf of the submitter, who is not me) tony 04:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Noted Kautilya3 has filed Violation against me, in assumption that I may be one who filed Vandalism case against them. I engaged in discussion on Dhurandhar talk on repeated reverts/ questionable edits. Wrote facts and raised concerns, many other users raised concerns on that page too. Thus, want to highlight I feel it's a personal attack/targeting users who are debating on topics is serious abuse. SakuraSmart (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Kautilya3, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, BhikhariInformer. Happy holidays and prosperous New Year to you! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kautilya3!

Happy New Year!

Kautilya3,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year Kautilya3!

Happy New Year!

Hello Kautilya3:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Fylindfotberserk. Have a wonderful New Year! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Military–industrial complex 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) 21:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Editorial Balance on page Dhurandhar

@Kautilya3 You began editing this article 24-12-2025, following the release of Dhruv Rathee’s video on 20-12-2025 in which he described Dhurandhar as propaganda. Given this timing, it is important to ensure that edits do not disproportionately reflect a narrow viewpoint to the likes of The Wire and Rathee. A pattern of edits focused narrowly on reinforcing this one narrative raises concerns under single-purpose editing ~2026-20401-6 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Confused

Can you help me out here? How does the difference of the map address WP:NPOV on Kargil district? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had deleted the Kashmir map as in this version. But it looks it was deleted before you. My apologies.

I don't understand what you are doing in any case. It puts up an OSM map somewhere up top, where it is not useful. But that is a problem with the template I guess, rather than your doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm simply removing the {{Maplink}} to use the built-in Module:Infobox mapframe which is more consistent. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange 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) 01:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th Anniversary!

Celebration~!

Wikipedia will only ever turn 25 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. Stay in touch. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC) That is cool. How are we celebrating? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Oh there was a celebration yesterday, see m:Event:Wikipedia 25 Virtual Celebration. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Orientls (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Message

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I-League&diff=prev&oldid=1338012413

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DaDeadzombie

(warn/ban suggested) Manuia'Le'Aso (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feeding Our Future 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|contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Savarkarites has been nominated for deletion

Category:Savarkarites 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. Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feeding Our Future 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|contribs) 20:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Zeliangrong-npui tribes

Yo bro can I edit the Zeme,Rongmei and Npui (Inpui) pages cus nobody is doing it. I have all the information and citations ready so please allow me to edit these pages. Thank you. Phohoshuu (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Phohoshuu, sorry for the delay. I am out travelling at the moment, and won't have time till next month. I suggest that you use your WP:SANDBOX to create new content. When you are done, I can review it, and add it to the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright sure, also can you please remove the image on the Liangmai page. It shows a Northern Zeme traditional dress rather than a Liangmai, I added that photo back when I didn't know much about us Nagas. My apologies. Poshlinoodles (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I replaced it with one from the gallery. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. In th future when a higher quality photo is taken of a Liangmai traditional dress I will try to add it (if I become an extended confirm user). Poshlinoodles (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Civil rights movement 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|contribs) 14:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WhatsApp + Google = Wikipedia

So that is what we are fighting everyday! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

More power to us. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

AfD: Ramco Institute of Technology

An article on this young but upcoming college is nominated for deletion. I would appreciate if you could kindly comment in the discussion. Tagooty (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• An editor has observed that this request is canvassing. Hence, I withdraw the request. My intent was not to canvass votes, but to elicit comments whether positive or negative. --Tagooty (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, it is. You might not have known, but I do. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI

Opindia put you in a headline. And a photomontage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

K3 removed the qualification "propaganda" from the short description and the lead diff, Jimbo responded to another editor, yet Opindia states:

Wales explicitly rejected the attempts made by one of the editors, “Kautilya 3” to label the movie a “propaganda film” in the article’s opening sentence using the so-called encyclopedia’s ‘neutral’ “WikiVoice”.

Opindia further stated:

Wikipedia editors openly pushed back against Kautilya 3’s attempt to label Dhurandhar films as a piece of propaganda. [Archive link 1] [Archive link 2]

whereas the links point to this comment by K3:

Comment - Removed for now for lack of sourcing. To say that it is a "propaganda film", you need a high-quality source saying exactly that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, their competence levels here seem even worse than what they are normally. I have alerted my lawyer and he assured me that something will be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, we have seen that at least the Supreme Court of India appears to have some competence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I have to tell you I am shocked. @Gotitbro, you might find this interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it was quite deliberate. There are a bunch of us that OpIndia likes to target. It looks like they waited for this long to write this story (whereas every other news site already did), just to squish one of their targets into it. This guy might have helped, but he is equally incompetent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

In the headline I see on google, your username is misspelled. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I have read Ashley Rindsberg's stories (founder of npovmedia) on the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict for the Tablet (and Pirate Wires) and they were fine (sometimes sensational). The X/Twitter thread linked above is then very shocking (and likely not by Rindsberg himself).

PS: I give no stock to OpIndia or their coverage but expect better of other wiki watchers. Gotitbro (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Also much ado in that [slander of an] article about Wikipedia highlighting violence associated with the phrase "Jai Shri Ram" (no protests are of course made about related articles, cf. "deus vult", which similarly note those trajectories). Gotitbro (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I read the opindia article, a first in years because I generally prefer not to read such sources, and saw that they quote some of my arguments from the film article's talk page (including one which they mistakenly attributed to another editor, which is hardly surprising given their lack of competence). They seem to have deliberately ignored this comment from Kautilya3 too. That article has all the markings of a hit piece. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok I see that they did not ignore the comment, but deliberately (mis)used it to falsify "evidence." UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

"Except those who want us to take sides in the debate who still agree that many sources have characterized the film as propaganda"

The above statement by Jimmy Wales talks a lot. He subtly thrown you under the bus Kautilya3 Florence Bishnoi (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

OpIndia represented this as ideological suppression. Wales noted some sources call it propaganda but did not endorse the claim and called the coverage misleading. Florence Bishnoi (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Why should Wales "endorse the claim"? At a guess, he hasn't seen the film and so doesn't have an informed personal opinion. And if he had and did, it wouldn't help anything if he said so. He said "The many sources which call it propaganda are important, and should be reported on of course, but not in WikiVoice." Not unreasonable, and he's free to think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Agra religious conversions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Agra religious conversions 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/2014 Agra religious conversions 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.

Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

• Using this warning because what you are doing is completely disruptive and you know it. You don't get to edit war and WP:STONEWALL only because you found 2 Hindu nationalists opposing reliably sourced content for personal reasons. They have failed to defend their content removal. ~2026-20622-93 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican 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|contribs) 11:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Arabic numerals

Sorry if I helped the discussion at talk:Arabic numerals get a bit off the rails. Thanks for adding some context. The current move proposal was over-hasty and poorly explained, and doesn't seem likely to result in any clear consensus.

I think the eventual best way forward is probably to merge the article Arabic numerals with the article Hindu–Arabic numeral system, since the two articles are more or less "POV" content forks, in a way that is pretty confusing and unhelpful to encyclopedia readers. But any substantial change should be done based on a more formal RFC asking broader community input. The best title for the resulting merged page is probably Hindu–Arabic numerals, though I'd be happy to defer to a community decision on that after an RFC, with clear description up front that they are also often called other names such as "Arabic numerals", "European numerals", "Indian numerals", "Indo–European numerals", etc. I think "Hindu–Arabic numerals" is probably the best name (1) because it is substantially preferred in most expert writing about the topic for the past 50–100 years (though there are some expert sources which e.g. write "'Arabic' numerals" with Arabic in scare quotes, or use various other names), and (2) because removing either "Hindu"/"Indian" or "Arabic", or both, entirely from the title will attract edit warring from various flavors of ethno-nationalists.

I think any RFC about this would be most effective with an improved/expanded draft article showing what a merger would looklike. @Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction started a quickly mashed together merger at User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction/Hindu–Arabic numerals. When I get a bit of time, I'd like to put some research/writing time into improving that draft, which I think we should try to spend at least a few weeks of sporadic effort on before taking any more community process action. Would you be interested in collaborating on a project like that? –jacobolus (t) 23:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding terminology, Indo–European numerals seems to be much less common than Hindu–Arabic numerals, and moreover it often refers to something different: the verbal representation of numbers in Indo–European languages. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh fair enough. It's worth doing some careful survey to figure out precisely which alternate names are worth listing inline vs. in a footnote. I'm not an expert on the full range of variants. –jacobolus (t) 01:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Please don't worry about the RfC going off the rails. At least, it brought some attention to the page,

I think merging "Arabic numerals" and "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" is not feasible because they are many numerals that go with the latter, used in India, West Asia, East Asia etc. For example, Thai numerals. And we also need to be sympathetic to the English meaning of "numeral" to mean digit.

I think the pre-Spitzak version of the page had the right focus even if it needed various fixes. If we can do those add some of the citations that you have gathered, that should be ok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia (or really in an encyclopedia in general), any article about either or both of these topics will, for good reason, have a predominant focus on Hindu–Arabic numerals as used in their modern "international"/"European" form, since they developed further in the past few centuries (decimal fractions, infinite decimals, scientific notation, use in printed documents, use in mechanical calculators and later electronic computers, etc.), and that notation is now used widely even in places where other symbols are also used. But there should of course be a section somewhere in the article about the history of their development and distribution around the world, and another section about the various symbols used in different places.

The pre-Spitzak version of the page was substantially redundant with the other article in its scope. The two were (and to some extent still are) basically content forks with alternate names, in my opinion both preserved as separate for political reasons. –jacobolus (t) 17:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The quick merge I did (and I did implement it pretty quickly, though I did some cleanup after that) already has a section on East Asia. It could easily be expanded to include Southeast Asia and other regions. I find the divisions between the articles Arabic numerals, Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system to be pretty arbitrary. If one wants to add a fact, it is not clear from reading the articles which of them that fact should go into. Moreover, the other uses of the glyphs 0123456789 (like non-decimal numeration or ZIP codes) can be summarized concisely. So, it is difficult (for me) to see what needs to be said about the glyphs specifically that does not fit into an article about the numeral system, given that we can allow ourselves footnotes and brief asides.

I think it will be the best use of our time to get one article right, rather than trying to fix substandard sourcing and other problems in three different places at once. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you or other editors check this?

He moved the page as per his wish, most sources say forced https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=1153839124

His edit summary was Previous title was wordy and somewhat POV

Even using his words the sources say forced, when I searched using his word coerced-

Google "Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan" and you will get forced not coerced. ~2026-23808-86 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it is unfortunate that we didn't notice it for three years. It is too late to revert back to the old version now. In any case, it wasn't very well-developed and just gave a long list of incidents, which is not encyclopaedic. The focus of the original content was also wrong in view, since it focused on "religious conversion" rather than human rights. It would be possible to create a new page on "Abduction of minor girls in Pakistan" focusing on human rights. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I also forgot about that page. Yesterday search results showed that page and from revision history I realized same page. In the talk page another user made similar edit request and he was asked to discuss as requested move. If he can move without discussion then why cant others move it back? As page title should be about sources. If majority sources say 'forced' he was used the word 'coerced'? ~2026-23808-86 (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey Kautilya, I know we have had our differences over Wikipedia edits many times, but I genuinely appreciate the effort you put in to keep things unbiased and non-promotional. Thanks also for all the anti-vandalism work. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much Flyingphoenixchips. I think we have had more differences than agreements, so this feels rather special! Hope the arguments have helped you get better at the Wikipedia policies. There is nothing we value more than having plenty of well-informed editors. Looking forward to see some solid work from you in future! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Terra nullius 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|contribs) 03:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm EarthDude. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Essentials of Hindutva in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ghizer Valley. 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. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of e-pao.net

Hoping to pick your brain before I take this anywhere... I have been mulling over opening an RfC, or at least an RSN thread, on the reliability of e-pao.net. It shows up across a lot of Manipur-related articles especially contentious ones and my impression is that it gets treated as a regular news source when in practice it is much closer to a self-published aggregation platform or group blog. It openly solicits unvetted reader submissions: "Readers are requested to share their knowledge/facts of Manipur in the form of articles. Please send your articles/fact-sheet/etc..." with no documented review process. . The most glaring is that there is no masthead, named editor, ownership disclosure, or corrections policy on the site. It self-describes as an "e-platform". Just glazing over the site you will also come across a lot of inflammatory articles. For most of its original content, WP:NEWSBLOG at the very best, and not usable for WP:BLP or contentious claims. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it is basically a blog site. Sometimes the articles are good with some factual information that I use. But the opinions expressed there absolutely not citeable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You can tag any bad sourcing with {{unreliable-source?}} or even delete it if it is really bad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

alright, thanks a lot Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)