This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You deserve equal credits for your valuable advice on this article's talk page, while preparing this nomination. Cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, DiBig. Congratulations to you and DTM. Good job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that article likely to attract a lot of edit wars? Oh, the irony if it does. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What makes u assume that your version is the correct version? Let other editors take a call on that.
Moreover, whats wrong in having sub headings?[[2409:4070:2091:CA61:0:0:354:D8A0 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)]]
Subsections are a way to split up an otherwise large section. They are not meant to be a way to put a bold face header for each paragraph.
Moreover, when an edit is reverted, you are expected to discuss it on article's talk page, not at random places. The notice you have received makes that quite clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Kautilya3. You have new messages at Talk:Alastair Lamb. Message added 13:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Why have you reverted the edits that I made to 'Kashmir Conflict' page under 2016 unrest. Your figures of the casualities are not up to date. You reverted the casualities back to 40 dead and 2000 injured, which was at the begining of the uprising, while the numbers surged to over 100 dead and 17,000 injured. I gave refernce from the Guardian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.108.234 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You made some wording changes which weren't an accurate reflection of the source. For the increased numbers, I suggest you add a separate sentence at the end of paragraph for the overall numbers. You also need to specify the time period over which they occurred.
When an edit is reverted, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and ask for views/responses. Please see WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sengunthar
Should we be concerned about what has been going on at Sengunthar recently? I am a bit preoccupied in real life. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Never heard of them. But I will watch list the page and see what I can do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I must have got you mixed up with someone who has heard of them! I can take a proper look when I am more focussed. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Help needed at Raju article
Hi Kautilya, can you please check the sources I have mentioned at Talk:Raju. Sitush reverted all my edits stating the sources were unreliable which I don't understand why. The article just states one author's views as general views and is not at all balanced. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
About the JeM - separatist or terrorist adjectives
I was only trying to best describe the group while keeping a neutral standpoint. Now it says Islamist Militant group on the page instead of Terrorist. These definitions always lead to edit wars. I had no intent here other than this. Pranav (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Pranav21391, The problem is not separatist or terrorist, but the "Kashmiri" label.
JeM is based on Bahawalpur in the southern Pakistani Punjab. It is the home town of its leader Maulana Masood Azhar. The majority of its members are Punjabis. Kashmir is just its battleground. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Ladakh division
Would you be able to have a look at Draft:Ladakh division? Appears legit, but this topic area has seen a bit of subtle hoaxing lately, so I can't be entirely sure. – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It is news to me that the Ladakh Division is a new thing! I thought it was a division and created a redirect a couple of years ago. We don't need a new article for the Ladakh Division. The necessary administrative information can be added to Ladakh and that is all there is to it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It was already listed as a division in in 2009. So somebody jumped the gun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, how have I missed that. OK, thanks. I guess I'll turn the draft into a redirect to Ladakh then. – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Kammanadu
Hello Kautilya. Chinnaraiu (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to bring to your notice that kammanadu stretched beyond Krishna river. The first reference to kammanadu comes from inscription at jaggayyapeta located in modern day Krishna district Chinnaraiu (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read the reply to your welcome on the talkpage for your reasonable answer. You contributed a second welcome126.243.85.139 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I suggest you copy the post to Talk:Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir. That is where the various editors will look for discussion. You cannot unilaterally alter the lead sentence of an article without reaching consensus. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, duly noted, yet the alteration was most certainly of good use to readers; it`s not as if one were trying to unilaterally change "Indian Ocean" to "African Ocean". II understand your pont, and stand embarrassed as my skin turned red. The image on nation-state does seem a bit pale, but I stand by the contribution.126.243.85.139 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Following
Please stop following my edits. It's called WP:FOLLOWING. If you continue to do so you will find yourself at ANI. MehrajMir (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You have an overactive imagination. These pages have been on my watch list for years. Try to chill a little! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And, your edits seem dubious anyway. If you continue doing such edits, I will indeed follow you, and quite rightly too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"The "Forward Policy" of the government under late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then army leadership has been blamed for India's humiliating defeat in 1962 war against China in a top secret report accessed an Australian journalist" aka The Henderson Brooks report.
Chinese never accepted the McMahon Line. The Chinese know exactly where it lies; they simply don't recognize it as legitimate since they never signed the Simla Accord. So this isn't a case of reneging on a prior commitment / agreement; there was no agreement on the part of the Chinese.
And that's not all: the Simla Accord claimed that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Suzerainty means control over domestic affairs but delegating control over foreign affairs to the suzerain. To me, it seems that the Simla Accord was never a valid agreement because the party that agreed to it, Tibet, did not have the legal capacity to agree to it under the terms of the agreement itself!
So to be clear, the Indian Army had set up outposts NORTH above the McMahon Line in what was Chinese territory: IF you go to wikipedia and lookup nehru and his forward policy.
"In June, local Indian commanders had estab-
lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards."
All of this was after the Chinese had built a road across Aksai Chin. So there are plenty of sources and established reasoning behind my words
Undelete my input and add in the source. Don't just remove completely and fyi, i was not the one who originally added india into the article. So you deleted other people's work too.
also bear in mind everything is recorded and logged and you can't delete history ~ i'm not going to fight you over it as i don't really care about your beef with China. Not my problem but I am am aussie who read alot of chinese history, fascinated about it and know my stuff. And i didn't do anything wrong.
I also noticed that you have been flagged for petty edit warring in the past.
120.18.180.210 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your post. I think you are talking about the article on Forward policy. I believe the content you have added to that article is off-topic. The topic of that article is described in its lead paragraph, and you have added completely unrelated content just because it happens to be referred to by the same term. Unless reliable sources show that this content belongs to the original topic, it doesn't belong there.
No offence mate, but please do not gaslight me as that is not a valid reason. If you read the first paragraph.
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states.[1]"
It is not about a specific" forward policy". Forward policy in this article, is not a name for a historically specific policy but an umbrella term to categorise and explain ALL forward policies doctrines in history and future, in general.
The "forward policy" in the Sino-indian war could not be more relevant to the article and is just as EQUALLY relevant to the "forward policy" used in the Great Game. It's both named "forward policy" abd additionally a forward policy doctrine in itself
If you are going to delete IT. You might as well also delete "great game" as they are both significant case examples of a "forward policy doctrine'.
It is named" "Forward policy" PLUS it is also a forward policy doctrine. 🙊 It has BOTH the name and the categorization of a forward policy doctrine. Don't get confused.
Nehru was the one who created the doctrine in response to the border disputes with China, in which emphasis is indeed placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion. I explained that fully.
Also if you look at past history of the page. Other people have already added it in as they recognised and included it as a an example of a forward policy.
If your English is lacking, i apologise for accusing you of gaslighting but i know you made a mistake here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.180.210 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid the standards of Wikipedia verifiability are a lot higher than you seem to think. To include both the Great Game "forward policy" and the alleged Nehruvian "forward policy" as one topic, you need a reliable source that does so. Otherwise, you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
dude, I'm a native English speaker and I can easily comprehend that article is not about the Great Game "forward policy" in particular.
It's about all "forward policies" in general. Also Nehruvian "forward policy" was not alleged as it actually happened. Historians don't dispute it and in fact refer to it often.
Indian posts were indeed placed above of mcmahon line by Nehru's orders. That's not even disputed by anyone including the west, indian government and china.
Harvard–Yenching Institute wrote a peer reviewed paper.
Regardless this article is not about the Great Game "forward policy". Not sure if you actually understand me perfectly but are dishonestly gaslighting me, but the first paragraph literally writes as :
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states"
It's a general article about forward policies and the great games was merely a single example of one. The Sino-indian forward policy is also another example. But the article is not about a particular forward policy but ALL FORWARD POLICIES and its criterion.
Please get someone who is familiar with English at a native level, as they will agree with me in a heartbeat. Not trying to be rude but this seems more like an argument between native English-speaking people and non native English language people.
This will be my last message and final but kind warning.. That you are incorrect and need to realise that. I am not going to spend further time to fight you over this as i have my own life but i hope you can open your mind and ask a third party who is preferably born in a western country and tell you who is correct. Because this is just too ridiculous and tiring and we are just going around in circles here. Arguing about silly basic English semantics. 😕🤨
Pinging RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 for explaining the policy to this editor. For reference, here is the content that I deleted as making unsourced connections between unrelated toics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi 120.18.180.210. You need to provide reliable academic sources when including any material in an article. Long story short, if you wish to link the Sino-India war of 1962 with "forward policy", you need an explicit academic reference that makes the connection. If you cannot find one, you shouldn't include it. --regentspark (comment) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay fine then, I already gave two sources and sufficient explanation on this page today. I can easily find more sources of o need to.
In addition, this article is about the "forward policy" doctrine. The first sentence is literally the criterion. Which defines a 'forward policy" doctrine.
"A set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, etc"
As you see, Nehru doctrine completely satisfies the definition with flying colors plus it is not a coincidence that it's also referred by academics as the "forward policy", as that is essentially what it is.
My beef is that the 2 forward policies used in the great games and lead-up to sino—indian war, are both examples of forward policies and additionally are arguably the most 2 most significant "forward policies" in modern history.
It makes no sense to delete one historic "forward policy" but leave another. Hence why I suspect indian nationalistic censoring here very strongly. I will change it but not at all interested in playing petty games if that's what is really happening. I don't want to edit it and 5 months later. It gets deleted with another bad but suspiciously underhanded excuse.
120.17.233.32 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Now the socks have been blocked, I've pretty brutally taken the chainsaw to Nizams of Hyderabad, and had a poke at Mir Osman Ali Khan. I may have accidentally eaten something of value (indeed, something added by you); I certainly won't take it amiss if you undo bits of what was a quick and radical excision. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Kammas language
Kammas only talk telugu as thier mother tongue. Please kindly remove Tamil word from the header section Ventrun (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on Kamma Caste Article
Hello Kautilya,
Thank you for your commitment to ensuring fair and unbiased standards in Wikipedia articles, especially caste ones. Though I have a concern. If you look at Reddy one and compare it to the Kamma one it’s clearly an unfair construction. In the Reddy one it states, “At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.[1][2] Historically they have been the land-owning aristocracy of the villages.[3][4][5] Traditionally, they were a diverse community of merchants and cultivators.[1][6][7] Their prowess as rulers and warriors is well documented in Telugu history.” The Kamma starts of by saying that are simply agricultural families and doesn’t discuss their warrior status, like the Reddi article. Moreover, the Reddy article has many notable and well deserved historical leaders mentioned, but Kammas aren’t able to mention Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu, Venkatadri Naidu, or other notable historical members from the group in the respective sections. When someone adds them or anything speculative, it’s instantly removed, despite the facts that the Reddies speculate to be Rashtrakutas on their page. The Reddies have phrase “analagous to Kshatriyas”, but the Kammas, despite having the same social status don’t have it on their Wikipedia page. The same thing goes for the Velama article where it proudly mentions their zamindari ancestry (though Kammas have them do to) but neglect to mention to their agricultural status. Why can’t the same standards apply to both communities? Why can’t we cite the historians who believe Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Clan or a mixture of Haihayas, Durjayas, Chalukyas, and Chodas. Why can’t we Note their “analagous to Kshatriyas” in the Varna status like it’s done for Rajus. Why can’t Kamma zamindaris be referenced like the Velamas? Why can’t pictures of Gandikota or the Battle of Raichur (which Krishnadevaraya credited to Pemmasanis) be put in the Kamma article. We can make it clear that it’s speculative. I want to work with you on this. I’m not going to hide the fact that I’m a Kamma, but I hope you can see why this is unfair. Will you work with me on a reasonable basis to fix this? I have done research and have a list of primary source and reliable documents that meet Wikipedia standards. I trust you to help me with this. Vivek987270 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem with all these South Indian caste pages is that they are contradicted by scholarly sources. Cynthia Talbot has pretty conclusively demonstrated that the modern caste identities arose only in the late Vijayanagara period, i.e., after the Battle of Tallikota when the empire fragmented. However, local historians believe that these castes existed from time immemorial. That rules out all of them from being reliable sources.
The Kamma page is in better shape than the others because there are more scholarly studies available for it now. The other pages still suffer from a lot of folklore. The Kamma page is also the most contentious because there is a lot of caste mythology associated with it. (Again the scholarly sources have studied this.) So people come here wanting to reproduce this mythology and we tend to revert them. I will look at the other caste pages when time permits, but Sitush is more the expert on them, whom I will ping.
We also know pretty conclusively now that, before they became "castes", Kamma was a geographic identity (associated with Kammanadu), and Reddi was a status title. I suspect "Raju" was also a status title. About "Velama", I have no idea. That seems to be quite a modern identity that developed a lot of mythology as well.
We don't generally accept arguments like that page says such and such, and so this page should do it too. Each page is considered on its own merits. There is no issue of "fairness" as you are making out. We state what the scholarly sources say. I suggest that you obtain a copy of Cynthia Talbot's book[1] and study it. That might tell you how to address the various issues that you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand Ms. Cynthia's work. But many other historians and Harrison say that the Musunuri nayaks are Kammas and that Kammas are warriors. We can definitely include that as it is sourced. To this day, Pemmasani is a surname found only in Kammas, and it openly acknowledges in another section of the caste page that Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu is a Kamma. In that same breath, I have provided a litany of suggestions to improve the article (includig mentioning of Experts Naidu, warrior occupation of Kammas, Musunuri Nayaks, the Kamma Zamindars during the British Raj, and etc.) The current wikipedia page totally washes over their martial/warrior roots. Now with Cynthia's work, with all due respect to her, she is in the minority view ln this topic in scholars and Srinata in Bheemeshwara Puranam mentions Kammas and Velamas as separate groups. That point alone negates hee argument, but the fact the regional historians disagree with her should raise eyebrows too. If Sitish can help, that would be appreciated.
"We state what the scholarly sources say." This may be true for other caste pages, but not Kammas. There is a clear neglect of the Musunuri Kayaks, Kamma Zamindars, The warrior status of kammas (harrison and benheballi explicitly say this), and etc. If what you say is true, i have provided scholarly citations on the Kamma talk page abour these points. I hope you enact them. Othewise use Talbot's work and remove the Rashtrakutas and Reddy Dynasty from the Reddy page since caste groups, according to her, were formed after the Vijayanagara Empire. You can't have double standards. Vivek987270 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I came to you in good faith for edits. Instead, you deleted an entire section of the Musunuri Nayaks being Kammas today after I mentioned it, despite the fact that regional historians believe they are and you failed to mention the viewpoint of regional historians. Moreover, you could have used this time, which you used to delete sourced content that was achieved after a consensus on the talk page, to edit the Reddy and Velama articles since you believe Talbot is correct. I guess "When I have time to edit" is your excuse to not edit them, but you seemingly did find time to edit out the Kamma link to the Musunuri Nayaks. I hope you will return the good faith work by having a discussion to reach a consensus. So, what can we add to the Kamma page from the sourced content I provided. Vivek987270 (talk)
Vivek987270, it appears that all that you are interested in is glorifying one caste and shooting down others. I am not interested in engaging in a debate of that sort. Please stop posting here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 That statement is ironic because no where do I see "aristocratic", "best warriors in Telugu states" "Reddy Dynasty", "Kshatriya", or anything of that sort in the Kamma article but it is present in the Reddies, despite them having the same social status and history. I am not shooting one down. I am asking for equal standards to apply. You removed the view of regional historians that Kammas were Musunuris and cited Talbot's view. I say fine. Remove the Reddy Dynasty information from the Reddy article since Talbot's standard applies to them. If you chose not, then why did you remove the Kamma mentions of the Musunuris and are not engaging with me on sourced edits to balance the article? With all due respect, I will continue posting here with sourced work that follows the rules of Wikipedia. You clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, as I have pro. I was hoping we could work together on reasonable edits that show the whole picture, but your apparent prejudices are quite clear. Vivek987270 (talk)
The standards we use are in the welcome message that I just gave you. Please look through all the policies mentioned there, and use them in your argumentation. Especially, you need to read and understand WP:RS thoroughly.
Also, once a user has asked you stop posting on their talk page, you are expected to abide by that request. So, once again, please stop posting here. You are welcome to raise your issues on the talk pages of the articles concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, living in a caste society and observing it, he is much more perceptive than the scholars who simply read texts and believe that they know what is going on. Purity and pollution have much more impact on the caste system than the ideas of 'hierarchy'.
But what he means by "caste" (a word that should be banned!) is some varna-like distinction. This is the Brahmin's idea of caste (who only make up 5% of the population). That is not the main idea of caste for the remaining 95%.
We have heard that there is varna and jati, both of which scholars indiscriminately translate as caste. But the scholars are much more guilty of not telling us that often they see kulam in the texts, which they never bothered to analyse at all! They do this so silently that it is amazing that they can get away with it! See one of the posts I made yesterday.
My translations of the three terms (and their corruption) are:
Maintaining a varna distinction (including endogamy within varna) may have to do with purity and pollution as well as hierarchy. But maintaining a kulam distinction (including endogamy within kulam) is more about community solidarity and power relationships within the society. These processes are entirely different.
For example, I mentioned that "Reddi" wasn't mentioned as a kulam in the text. That suggests that it was still being treated as an honorific and only certain elites were entitled to use the title. But, by the time the British arrived on the scene, "Reddi" was apparently being used for all Kapus (farmers). So, the Reddis apparently gave away their prized title to the commonfolk! All purity/pollution or hierarchy ideas were discarded. For some reason, it was more important for this community to acquire more members than to maintain their elitism. All the scholarly theories can't explain this phenomenon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Ran into this passage today:
Had varna rank been crucial to social recognition and prestige during that time, we would observe a greater number of royal and chiefly lineages advancing claims to kshatriya status. The fact that they did not do so is an indication of the relative insignificance of varna for non-brahmins in the thirteenth century. In other words, the classical varna scheme was a paradigm that was meaningful primarily to those individuals who considered themselves brahmins. Current research suggests that consciousness of varna became stronger during the colonial period, partially as a result of the listing of castes according to varna affiliation in the Census of India (Cohn 1984, Pederson 1986).[1]
^Talbot, Cynthia (1992). "A revised view of 'traditional' India: Caste, status, and social mobility in medieval Andhra". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 15 (1): 17–52. doi:10.1080/00856409208723159. ISSN0085-6401.
Hi Kautilya, Thanks for reviewing my edits. One contributor asked to provide evidence that jaati refers to caste in Tamil language. I provided that reference. It's unfortunate that you have decided to classify my edits as "not needed". Do you agree that "jaati" is the word used to refer to "caste" in Tamil language (i am not sure about other languages)? If yes, then we should make it clear to the reader of the article. If you dont agree, lets discuss to come to the same understanding. Thanks, arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Barunskumar, As I said in the edit summary, Jati is already explained in the article. The Tamil usage isn't anything different from what is explained there. -- Kautilya3
Hi Kautilya, yes - Jati is mentioned, along with Varna. It equates Varna to Class according to occupation...which is fair. But the Jati section explains the origins of jati and perspectives of different historians. AND IT DOES NOT SAY JATI REFERS TO CASTE IN INDIAN LANGUAGES (atleast in Tamilnadu). I think we should mention the fact that common people use the term jati to refer to caste. The way the first 3 sections are organized currently, many folks are going to assume caste is portugese origin english word and it has no relation to jati in india. That's why i want to add that clarification. Please let me know if I have missed out some section which equates jati to caste. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar (talk • contribs)
No, we don't want to say that. Jati is a more refined or nuanced term than caste. "Caste" was coined by westerners to talk about what they thought the Indians were practising. But what they thought was quite inaccurate. So, in serious discussions about caste, we avoid the term "caste". In particular, varna and jati are very different communitarian notions, and kulam is yet another. The idea of "caste" fuses all of them together and comes up with conclusions that are factually wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Let me also point out that you are inverting causality here. You seem to think that all Indians understand what "caste" means, and they need to explain Indian terms using the foreign term. It is in fact the other way around. Indians really think using Indian terms, use the western term to translate their idea into English. What they mean by "caste" may be quite different from what the books say about caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
From your comments on the Talk page of this article, it appears that you consider that you are in some sort of dispute with me. I have no idea what this dispute is supposed to be about. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a dispute, but I would say that your intervention there did not help. The right thing to do is to ask for a policy-based debate, if there is any, and shut down WP:FORUMy discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was about the wording of the article, as to whether it was neutral. It was not a discussion about the actual subject of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps so. But the wording reflects the sources. If the sources were misrepresented, then that needs to be established. If there are other sources that contradict the content, they can also be brought forward. That is what an NPOV debate means. But claims like "I don't believe this wording is neutral" are pure WP:OR and disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it looked like an attack-account. Probably best to delete the ramblings and forget about them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Caste system in India (continued from Archived discussion)
>> I am continuing the discussion on caste/jati from archived discussion..which i cannot comment on >>
Hi Kautilya, Please explain how Jati is more nuanced than caste...with references (I am not talking about what caste meant to portugese or english. I am talking about what caste means to indians). And then please add that to the section explaining why u dont want to equate it to caste (with references) & i can add a section explaining why i think both are same. Let the readers decide on the point/argument that appeals on them. In colloquial usage in tamil, both words mean the same. For common references like wikipedia, mentioning this important...imho.
In the first place, you need to put posts at the bottom and sign them. Please see HELP:TALK.
Secondly, if I recall correctly, you wanted to add something in the article on Caste system in India that caste is called jati in Tamil. The article is not concerned about what the Tamil terminology is. You can put that in the Tamil Wikipedia if you would like, or you can start an article on Caste system in Tamil Nadu, where it would be of interest. But not in this article.
Nobody knows what "caste means to Indians". That article is talking about all caste-related concepts, including jati, varna etc.
Finally, I am not confident that caste is called jati in Tamil either. This source says it is called kulam. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Reference: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, 226. "Al-Hajjāj, wrote to Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi to summon Atiyya and ask him to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in the event of his refusal to do so, to slash him four hundred times and to shave his head and beard. Muhammad summoned Atiyya and read over al-Hajjāj's letter to him so that he might choose one of the two alternatives. Atiyya declined to curse Ali and agreed to the alternative"
Dr. Hamza Ebrahim, this is not an issue of "hiding" facts, but of finding the right kind of sources. For historical information, Wikipedia requires WP:HISTRS, scholars who have the expertise to cull and document historical information. Once you find such sources for the content, we can discuss whether it belongs in this article or not. (I am also concerned that you have labelled it "Animosity towards Ali" or something like that, whereas your text only said that he was following orders.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, You could edit the heading but not delete the text after a credible reference was provided from book of history much reliable than chachnama or other books cited already in this article. Although chachnama too is a source that has its place. Ibn Hajar's work is not only a history book but it also follows the rules of Hadith science of Islamic tradition. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
As WP:HISTRS explains, only scholarly sources written by academics are "credible sources" for history. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe in. But, for Wikipedia, this is the criterion.
You are welcome to raise it at WP:RSN and check what other editors think. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, Chach Nama is also treated the same way. It is only accepted if it is validated by academic scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Ibn Hajar is considered to be one of the most authentic historians by academics. His work Tahdhib al Tahdhib is one of the most credible books in hadith science, one that deals with authenticity of Hadith. When scholars debate about Hadith of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, they quote his work. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:HISTRS asks for "modern historical scholarship", which is generally taken to begin at 1950. In special cases, we can go back up to 1900, not before. Anything prior will be taken as a WP:PRIMARY source, can only be used if it is validated by WP:HISTRS. By that I mean, it has to be stated as fact by a modern historian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, you said that my ping somewhere didn't work. Checking to see if this works. If it does, please say 'aye'. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! regarding our disagreement on "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim".
I hope it helps,
Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dr. Hamza Ebrahim:, thanks for opening a DRN case. You are generally expected to refrain from editing the contested content while the case is on. You can continue discussion the talk page, but there would be little point because it is deadlocked. DRN provides the structured discussion which can hopefully lead to a resolution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
I am supposing you have perused my arguments. If you indeed have, then what's your opinion on the same? Do you find them convincing? Have I laid out all the requisite facts? I'd be grateful if you also point out the flaws in it, except for certain gratuitously rhetorical comments that I'd made, which I'd beseech you to overlook.
Hi Kautilya, are you busy these days? Sharkslayer87 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sharkslayer87:, Indeed I am quite busy. But still doing a few things here. Is there something you need me to look at? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Thanks for your reply despite your busy schedule. I was also busy the last three weeks and hadn't gotten a chance to login. I happened to login yesterday and noticed a slew of edits on several topics, all to do with highlighting caste. This is in connection to Vijayanagara, Musunuri, Pemmasani etc. A cursory glance at the user's edits reminded me of the banned socks of @ForeverKnowledgeSeeker:. Looks like this account is trying to achieve what those accounts failed to. The behavior matches exactly with their behavior and the language also matches. I don't think it is a good idea to go for a check user as it is very likely they are editing from a new IP to avoid getting caught. I think a behavior test could be done based on the nature of edits they have been doing. I want to know if you feel the same too or if you feel this is a different account that has nothing to do with those banned socks. Either way, please let me know what your thoughts are so that we can decide whether it is a good idea to open a sockpuppet investigation or not. Cheers, Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Hi Kautilya, is there any reason you are not responding? Is it because this account is genuine and we don't need to do any investigation? Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sharkslayer, please note that Sockpuppetry allegations should be made only at WP:SPI. Moreover, mere suspicions are not enough. You need evidence. I would encourage you to continue looking. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I gather you think there is no sufficient evidence at this time that calls for a sock puppet investigation. Thanks for your input. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, that was a sock. I was right. Cheers Sharkslayer87 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Sharkslayer87. That was a quick kill! I was expecting the guy was on proxies and we would need to go for behavioural evaluation. He dropped some of his pretenses yesterday, and I was thinking of putting it together today, but I wouldn't have had time till late in the evening. Incidentally, if you want to coordinate SPI cases, you would need to do it offline. Policies don't allow us to do it publicly. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
If you observed, the user was very polite and submissive at first. They were asking you questions about what sources to add and the like. As time progressed, they became more and more stubborn and their comments started showing that. Towards the end, they made it pretty obvious that they were in fact the same account that we had to deal with in the past. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to make a new page on the history of the Late Vijayanagara period. The lean periods for political history are apparently the high periods for social history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I gave verified link to support my modification and I can give more such links that clearly shows that Romila Thapar is Marxist historian . In fact she confessed that history not only depends on facts but also depends on historians ideology . Her way of writing history clearly shows that she believes in Marxist histography and she called her critics as right wing Hindutva historian which means that she considers herself as a Marxist historian. Birat Roy007 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Newspapers are only reliable for news, as per WP:NEWSORG.
But the more important point is, why didn't you open a talk page discussion when you were first reverted by Vanamonde93? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Since I was pinged; Birat Roy007, you need to read WP:DUE and WP:NOR very carefully. What you personally know to be true about Thapar is quite irrelevant; the only things we say in Wikipedia's voice are things which the preponderance of reliable sources agree upon. That is what you need to demonstrate, in this case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I greatly appreciate your moderating the discussion at the talkpage. Let me know if it becomes too much of a time-sink and the editors need to be directed to DRN, or if other admin-y interventions are needed (article protection, warnings, restrictions, topic-bans etc). Thanks again. Abecedare (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare, I gave up "moderating" because I couldn't figure out what the protagonists were arguing about. So I did my own research and came up with a draft. I would appreciate your comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The sensible approach to cutting the Gordian knot. As you obviously know:
Finding the best sources and summarizing them >> Googling for sources that support the fact one wishes to add
for cases, such as this one, where "due weight" rather than plain "verifiability" is the governing concern. For now, I won't dive into the content analysis myself but will follow it. Hopefully, if the current fracas with WMF can be resolved, we'll see more regular editors be active again soon. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Modern yoga
Hi Kautilya3, thanks for joining in. I have I think discovered a key reason for the current dispute: the article was written about what an academic might call Singleton's vision of modern yoga, viz, the yoga that is practised by millions around the world consisting mainly of asanas with a bit of pranayama and relaxation thrown in, sometimes a little meditation and possibly a bit of chanting and other spiritual elements too; but excluding the religious-sect kinds of yoga where it's all about a guru and there's little or no asana practice, which (let's face it) most of the public wouldn't recognise as "yoga". Singleton observed that "yoga" so defined (as it is known outside India, corresponding approximately but not exactly with "yogasana" in India) does not fit into any of Elizabeth De Michelis's categories (the nearest is "Modern Postural Yoga", but that would exclude its other often minor components; and my first attempt at a title for the article was accordingly "Yoga (postural)" as that seemed to be most of it, but it is clunky and didn't exactly fit, so I changed it, see the talk page). In other words, the article is about "modern Singletonian yoga" (we urgently need a name that works...) not De Michelis' parent category "Modern Yoga" (capital letters). I am concerned that editors imagine that the article is however about the De Michelis category, in which case it would be basically an academic discussion of typology (a possible topic but for a different article). This article has been until this week about something non-academic, the yoga that is widely practiced, and I am worried because the new definition that has been inserted makes it look as though the article's goal and subject has been changed, which is not acceptable practice. I've actually never faced a problem of this scale on Wikipedia, and I've written hundreds of major articles. Your suggestions, advice, and assistance would be warmly welcomed, as I wish to deal with this sensibly and rationally in the face of a continued dispute with a tone that is not at all comfortable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the title "Modern Yoga" definitely needs to be changed. It is a POV term in itself. My preference would be Yoga (exercise). That title is currently misused for an article that doesn't need it.
The first couple of sentences in the Simpleton book say:
This book investigates the rise to prominence of āsana (posture) in modern, transnational yoga. Today yoga is virtually synonymous in the West with the practice of āsana, and postural yoga classes can be found in great number in virtually every city in the Western world...
I don't think adding a little bit of pranayama changes the basic character of the practice. In fact, a little bit of pranayama has always been part of the "yoga for the common man" or the "physical yoga" tradition that has come down to us. I was quite surprised when I learnt that this "tradition" goes back only to 1930s, but even so, it was fully developed within India's confines before it got exported. So, it wouldn't be right to bill it as a practice that developed "outside India". Of course there are differences. In India, one might have gone to an ashram to learn the "yoga for the common man" rather than to a downtown "yoga club" and, in India, it wasn't as commercialised, beautified and sexed up as in the West. But India is now catching up with the West too.
As to what was there before the 1930s, I can't say for sure. I tend to believe that the physical yoga was a part of the yogic practices ("sound mind lives in a sound body" kind of thing), but it wasn't packaged up for the common man. So, what happened in the 1930s was an innovation rather than an invention. That is why I wouldn't want to call it "Modern yoga" or anything of that sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. "Yoga (exercise)" has the merit of putting the keyword first, and "exercise" is certainly a well-recognised qualifier. The use of a qualifier like that makes it clear the title is descriptive, not an existing phrase, which is good, too. The was-it-a-revolution-or-an-evolution thing will go on forever, and we have no need to take sides on it; there is no doubt that Krishnamacharya was very influential (Iyengar, Jois, Devi...) and that his intentionally experimentational approach made yoga (exercise) approachable, to Westerners as it turned out. Would you like to propose the page move? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW my email is down, ISP says it'll be back soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I've started again at User:Chiswick Chap/Yae and would be grateful for your thoughts. The task is easier without the need for pre-modern history, and with the sharper definition (modern denominational yoga, etc, are now excluded). I've redone the comparison to have similarities as well as differences. Most of the rest seems to me quite neutral, even with a quantity of hindsight actually, but you may think otherwise? Certainly there's no attempt anywhere to force a story on to the facts, which are plentiful and reliably cited. The intention is to cut down the -as-exercise bits in the other article, and to put in placeholders for the other kinds of modern yoga for whoever fancies it to fill in, so the overlaps will greatly reduce. In theory.
I've reworked the Yoga as exercise draft for strict neutrality, but I'm now so close to it that another pair of eyes would be very valuable on that question. I've also gone through anything that might be thought OR; again I really can't see any, but your thoughts would be most useful.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==
hi can you have a look at this user:Pak-Egale really making mess of articles related to the topic, may be a sock ? quite amazed at other users jumping in together , no idea where to complain Shrikanthv (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: I think Ponyo continues to watch the editor. I notice that their edit today at Battle of Burki is similar to the old edits before the recent block. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
How can IAF be removed as 1965 war and Kargil 1999 war whose epicenter was Kashmir...IAF had been a very important part of it....and then you have balakot airstrikes and then next day dogfight between India and Pakistan air forces... Mayank Prasoon (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is so then the name of air chief Marshal of IAF B.S Dhanoa be also removed from infobox template of Kashmir conflict page...since IAF had no role in Kashmir conflict...as my edits were reverted Mayank Prasoon (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I reinstated your edit. To tell you the truth, that whole infobox is crap because the Kashmir conflict is overall a political conflict, not a military conflict or a war. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh okay so rather remove the entire infobox and just add the name of political leaders then Mayank Prasoon (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Even including the political leaders doesn't make sense because the dispute has been going on for sixty years, and has seen many political leaders. The leaders of the current day do not in anyway summarise the whole conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Good work on Article 370. GSwarnkar 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you GSwarnkar. Nice to make your acquaintance. This will be a long road, though. This is just the beginning... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Certain issues
Hi Kautilya I was flicking through the Gilgit-Baltistan page and in the first few paragraphs it stated that International organisations and the United nations refer to Azad and Gilgit as Pakistan administered Kashmir but they also referred to Indian side as administered by India regardless of whether it is union territory now so do you think its necessary to mention this? I think it's a bit unfair if it's high lighted prominently on Gilgit-Baltistan but not Jammu and Kashmir page double standards if you ask me please reply with a suggestion. - 82.132.243.110 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I will look into it. But the problem arises from Pakistan itself. Pakistan's constitution doesn't say that Pakistan-administered parts of Kashmir are part of Pakistan. The Census of Pakistan doesn't list those areas as being part of Pakistan. Et cetra. Obviously, Wikipedia can't say what Pakistan doesn't say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying but my point was that the United Nations and other organisations both refer to Indian and Pakistani Kashmir as administered by them so why is Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan article the only one which states The UN line? its referred to as an autonomous territory mostly. I think removing the prominent message which is present on Both Azad and Gilgit article of Kashmir which states it as being administered and the UN stating its administered is fair otherwise by this logic it's only fair to have the same statement on Indian Administered Kashmir article. If you dont know which statement I'm talking about is it's the one directly below the introduction on Gilgit which mentions the UN statement which is missing on Indian administered Kashmir article I can link it if you want. Thanks I chose to speak to you as I read your contributions on the talk page and you seem neutral compared to the other nationalists who populate Wiki these days. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi this is the statement "the United Nations and other international organisations as "Pakistan administered Kashmir"
The same statement applies to Indian administered Kashmir so why is this statement only present on Gilgit and Azad Kashmir article it's a bit biased on my opinion. I wish to avoid edit wars and get people like you involved who are mature and balanced because it quickly degenerates into edit wars. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry the messages my last suggestion is calling them autonomous territory of Pakistan which is the official term used in Pakistan it's unfair to have Indias official name used for its portion of Kashmir while forcing biased terms onto Pakistans portion. Autonomous territory is what the official definition of the territory is in Pakistan. Please do look into this. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
[1] This articles first reference regards it as a autonomous territory of Pakistan from the Pakistani Beurea of Statistics it's only fair to have this as the way to describe it. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
How can I demand two way interaction ban with user who is disrupting my edits in bad faith?
Can you help me to demand two way interaction ban with user who is constantly reverting my edits, being hostile, nominating my page for deletion and pushes POV on me? I just want interaction ban on that user so that he can't do it further. --Harshilwant to talk? 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
For topics under discretionary sanctions, my suggestion would be to file a complaint at WP:AE. For anything else, it would probably be best to file a complaint at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read
After the discontinuation of Article 370 in the J&K region, Pakistan can no longer claim the region, Pakistan is already scared for PoK and hasn't yet announced a claim again on the J&K region. Also, It had been an integral part of India in the past which makes India it's parent country, has a parent country can and should claim over the disputed territory and the daughter country can no longer claim on the regions of the parent country.
That is an unsourced claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
How
is it playing out over Kashmir related articles? ∯WBGconverse 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It is an avalanche. What else? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to throw pages I'm uninvolved with under WP:GS/IPAK. Let me know if and when it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As expected ..... Watchlisting all the pages, though. ∯WBGconverse 14:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 it is not so much the editor conduct that is the problem, but the goofy Indian newspapers and the usual misinterpretations. We have an edit request roughly once an hour asking for something to be changed to "Union territory". But is likely to be over soon, because the Government is moving with top speed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
On a side-note, can you lead me to some reliable source that discusses about the old-rule of disallowing land-purchase by foreigners, in details? I checked some stuff on land-reforms but none offers an in-depth treatment. On a sidenote, the quality of media-reporting has been near-uniformly shabby from a multitude of perspectives. A Scroll piece that (supposedly) deals with my query, seems to have copied a Quora answer in toto.∯WBGconverse 14:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, the article body has enough discussion of it. Leads summarise the body. So it may or may not be possible to give citations for them. If you have read the body and don't find the needed citations, please post a note on the article talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems Dawn thinks Wikipedia only has one contributor from Pakistan. And they didn't get your username right, if indeed it was you. Do we consider Dawn to be reliable? - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
That is an excellent question to ask about newspapers and weekly magazines from South Asia (and many other parts of our world). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Dawn is obviously a RS and typically more reliable, when contrasted with other sources from Pakistan. ∯WBGconverse 14:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can believe that but I'm not sure that being more reliable than something else actually makes it reliable on our terms, which at an extreme would imply that we would say nothing rather than use Dawn. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, in my input I mainly bad-mouthed the newspapers, including Dawn. Obviously she didn't put that in. I told her specifically how The Hindu and New York Times ensured accuracy, while all other South Asian papers fell short. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Heh. I had a similar experience some years ago with The Times of India. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Relevant link: [2]NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nitin. It is funny how all the newspapers seem to think Wikipedia is like another Twitter or Facebook, even though they plagiarise us quite regularly! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Occupation
In the case of Kashmir, the other 2 areas of the country that are truly administered are so out of an administration agreement which was followed by occupation.
This area I changed was first occupied then forced to be administerrd, thus not truly administration in origin, but occupation in origin.
The other arras, tho not happy w/either the foreign administration AND origin nevertheless agreed to the foreign administration. The area I changed did not agree, wish, nor desire both administration nor ocvupation from the beginning. Hence the change/edit to the page.
Thx. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein (talk • contribs)
Adambein, your edit was reverted as per WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. You need to read that page fully to understand what that means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Lakshmisreekanth (talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
You must be working hard about Jammu and Kashmir. Have some ice cream.
To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Thank you Srikanth. Jammu and Kashmir indeed requires loads of work. Thanks for pitching in! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it was the edit before yours that was the problem. Before you make an edit, please ensure that the article is in a clean state and revert any previous disruptive edits. Writing edit summaries is also necessary, so that we can tell the edits apart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Sheila Rashid article and adding Army's allegations
Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I understand we all are working for an unbiased and informative Wikipedia where rather then promoting a particular agenda we provide the insight into the topic of article. The additions which I want to add were in line with same principle. You told me I am free to add the allegations made by army on Sheila Rashid and I added what I found. I even added the recent statement made by her concerning the allegations. Even after giving a long summary with clear meaning my edits got reverted only because the editor thinks I added soundbytes and contradictions ? How adding counter allegations made by an organization against which the original statements were made and adding recent statements made by the person contradictions? I hope you understand and give a proper explanation before reverting and assuming that I am going in for an edit war. AnadiDoD (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Your "unbiased information" without a "particular agenda" wants to put all this bold face branding? The Army didn't make any allegations. It merely denied whatever she said. Apparently, they denied only two charges and left eight others unanswered [3].
From what I can see, this is going to be a yet another mud-on-the-face episode like it happened with Kanhaiya Kumar. Only this time, it will cause "irreparable injury to the reputation of India". So you better cool it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ranjit Singh
there is no doubt in Ranjit's Singh's ancestry Neither his clan claim Rajut ancestry.I personally know the royal family.Everybody know who Ranjit Singh was and he is never mentioned Sansi I can give reference but I will remove these claims 1000 times because the truth is the truth Ponia.sp (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The content you deleted is sourced to reliable scholarly sources. If you do not thing it should be present, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and see if there are any objections. I also note that your claim of "Sandhwalia gotra" does not have a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 please stay unbiased and neutral. Keep Wikipedia free from your unjustified assertions. Ngnrpu (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Article 370
Article 370 is not a Special provision to J&K but a temperory one. Vishalmenon (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC).
Then what is the purpose of undoing my edit? Vishalmenon
I must have misread it. Which page was it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Find it out.The sentence was confusing and contradictory.So corrected it. Vishalmenon
I don't think so. Here is the revert. Your edit was not what you claim it to be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Kashmir is a United Nations nominated disputed region and its borders and status will be decided by United Nations based plebiscite. Any politically biased assertions ok any article contradicts the international laws. Kindly stay neutral and avoid Hindu supremacist ideology away from Wikipedia. If you need training the he contact Wikipedia foundation or me. Ngnrpu (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the revert linked above - is it the content you disagree with or simply the sentence structure? In other words will you allow the content back in the article if I alter the sentence structure? --Edit-pi (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the sentence was too long and meandering. But also more substantively, the page is on the Bill. We can only summarise the circumstances of its enactment, but extensive details about the process need to go in the process page, which is notable in itself. Please see Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Indian revocation of any article and making Kashmiri Muslims slaves by using cerfews is against United Nations based resolutions. Please keep facts clear and right and avoid vandalism. Ngnrpu (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Are you sure this page move was a good idea? - INX Media case to INX Media case against P. Chidambaram.
Maybe the article just now focuses mainly on P. Chidambaram but then the case as a whole isn't only about him and a lot of information is available which can include others related to the case. Comments? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi DTM, the new title is the correct description of the content of the article. Do you disagree? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
No one can be bothered to do justice to the article content (including me) so I can't really disagree.... as of now the title change makes sense, but to the INX Case as a whole no. Let's see what happens in the AFD and in reality, accordingly I will give it time. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, DBig. That reminds me to clean up one of the sections that needs work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
a friend recently shared documentary. I have only seen 30 minutes so far but it appears to be well made. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Pretty good for right-wing media. Timed for the BJP's constitutional coup on 5 August? I am surprised that William Dalrymple agreed to be interviewed for this. On the whole, it is quite well-done, but plenty of errors and subliminal propaganda.
There were no "Chinese" forces that fought Zorawar Singh.
Plenty of Kashmiri tropes through Javed Iqbal, but no mention of Jammu Muslims.
The "recreation" of Poonch Rebellion is totally substandard. They shouldn't have done that.
The timeline is wrong too. Sheikh Abdullah was released before the Poonch Rebellion.
A. M. Watali at about 23:00 is great. He states the crux of the issue, which nobody recognizes.
Shaukat Hayat Khan didn't invade the Kashmir Valley. He was assigned to invade Jammu, but didn't deliver.[1]
The monolithic idea of "the British" (in the Gilgit Rebellion episode) is too simplistic. The British officers stationed in the northwest were a law unto themselves, but it wasn't an organised "British policy" about this.
"Kashmir is irrevocably fractured." (36:00) Very believable, but it is contradicted by Nehru and Abdullah at 40:00. In 1972, Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed that it was in fact an ethnic and ideological partition.[2]
The right-wing propaganda starts around 41:00, when a supposedly macho Army was held back by peace-loving Nehru. The reality is that the Uri-Poonch-Naushera line was long-recognized as the only viable line. The Army took Poonch in the last minute, and then lost the Haji Pir pass through its own idiocy. The cease-fire came into being, not because "Nehru accepted", but because Pakistan accepted the UN resolution.
I recently discovered that what is called the "Dixon Plan" (42:30) was in fact the Ambedkar Plan.[3] Ambedkar, who was the Law Minister, wanted to settle Kashmir, as did Patel. But Dixon added stringent conditions (Abdullah should step down), and the proposal fell apart. The theory that it fell through because Pakistan wanted Ladakh is wild imagination!
"Without plebiscite Abdullah could not consolidate his position". (44:00) That is so nonsensical that it is not even wrong. The fact is that the plebiscite was a Democles's sword hanging over Abdullah's head. His neighbour Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who had to put up with a plebiscite, was already in prison.
"Meant to appease the Muslim majority" (46:20). The cat is out of the bag now.
Abdullah is arrested (48:00). Why didn't they ask Karan Singh why he did it?
Indus river (49:00). The Sindhu mata, I suppose? Heavy propaganda now. The Indus river flows on the other side of the Himalayas and it is of absolutely no use to either Kashmir or India. It is Jhelum and Chenab that are bones of contention. But they are not matas for the right wing.
"Appeasement of the Chinese"? (52:00)
Sheikh Abdullah explores "possible merger with POJK"? (1:02:00) Where did that come from? And, the "Islamisation of Kashmir had begun"? (1:03:00)
The Siachen line at 1:05:00 is not recognizable!
Abdul Ghani Bhat at 1:09:00. So even Hurriyat is acceptable now as long as they can take pot shots at Congress?
The whole coverage of the insurgency seems quite made-up. The line that the Army was never looking for militants crossing the LoC because there was no intelligence about it (1:20:00) sounds ridiculous.
Ahl-e-Hadith mosques (1:23:00). This is new to me. We need to look into this.
There was shelling of Kargil before Vajpayee's Lahore trip? (1:29:00) Poor peace-loving Vajpayee who got double-crossed?
The rest of the programme (1:30:00-1:50:00) wanders off aimlessly. But there is repeated talk of "water", which is sinister. But, indeed, it has been on my radar for a while now. There is also a lot of prodding about "merger with POJK", e.g., the 1994 Parliament resolution etc. Is this just a game, or are they serious about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
References
^Khan, Aamer Ahmed (1994), "Look Back in Anger", The Herald, Volume 25, Pakistan Herald Publications: "Liaquat Ali Khan said that the operation had failed because of the betrayal of Nawab of Mamdot [the premier of Punjab, Shaukat Hayat's boss], who had let Pakistan down by not doing what he had promised to do."
^Dhar, P. N. (2000), "Did Bhutto outwit Indira Gandhi", Indira Gandhi: The Emergency and Indian Democracy, Oxford University Press: "The line of control was therefore largely an ethnic and linguistic frontier. In fact in 1947, at the time of partition, it was also an ideological frontier, being the limit of the political influence of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and his National Conference party. True, there were some anomalies in this otherwise neatly etched picture, but these, Mrs. Gandhi pointed out, could be removed by mutual consent."
Yeah, I did. It was an impressive filing, with loads of work! I am surprised it didn't check out. I will keep watching. -- ¬¬¬¬
Thanks, yeah I'm surprised as well. Should've been blocked based on the provided evidence. Like 100%. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me to expand this article?
Hey Kautilya! I made the article Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill along with reorganisation bill. Now, this page has been proposed to the deletion. I saw that you expanded the article of reorganisation bill. In my opinion, even if bill is withdrawn, bill is still notable and historical and enough details are available. Can you please help me to expand this article? --Harshil want to talk? 03:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is ambiguity regarding the terminology of Indian administered or Indian state, why don't you take a look at Mangla Dam. The dam's location is mentioned as Azad Kashmir there. If Kishanganga Project is termed to fall in "Indian-administered Kashmir" why is Mangla Dam not named to be located in Pakistan-administered Kasmir? Afterall it also falls in the disputed area. So I am going to revert your edit. There cannot be this sort of double standard editing. Trojanishere (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Trojanishere
There is a discussion at WT:INB about how to describe the various jurisdictions of Kashmir. Please express your views there.
Coming to this particular topic, the Kishenganga River (Neelum River) flows through both Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir regions, more of it in the latter. There is a sister project of the Kishanganga Project, called the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Plant, where indeed the region is described as 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir'. (Mangla Dam is not the correct comparison for the subject.) The context determines that these two projects should describe their regions as the corresponding "administered" jurisdictions. A non-specialist reader is likely to be confused otherwise.
Finally, when an edit is reverted, you need to discuss and reach WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating your edit. Just posting a note somewhere doesn't constitute CONSENSUS. Please be aware that all Kashmir-related pages are subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions.
If it fits into your interests, could you keep an eye on this article? It was the subject of a lot of disruption in the past day that took me a while to unravel. It doesn't look like you've edited this article but I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors had it on their watchlist in case it gets moved again to any unusual new page titles. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 03:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Liz. I didn't have it on my watch list for some reason. It looks like the user expanded it by 47% over the summer. Most of the new content is essay-like. The section on "Shia intelligentsia in Akbar's court" is the finest example. I will post some notes on the talk page. I hope you will continue to keep an eye on it. Pinging also RegentsPark, who has dealt with this user earlier. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
We probably don't need both. But I'd check the articles' history as I wouldn't be surprised if some of the content was transferred from one to the other. LizRead!Talk! 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of stuff is copied from one to the other. I've asked them why so let's see. --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the user was trying to merge it into one page [5]. That is when the "onm" stuff happened ("one" misspelt). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that the rationale for two separate articles is similar to that for Islam in India versus Islam in South Asia; however, this presupposes that the content in the two articles isn't entirely duplicated. Also, the title should probably be "Shia Islam in South Asia"; as we've discussed before, "Indian subcontinent" is really a geophysical descriptor, and "South Asia" a sociopolitical one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps they were right to try and move it? Wouldn't it make more sense to have Shia Islam in South Asia as a general topic with sections for country specific stuff? (I say this with little to no knowledge about the topic!) --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Which move are you referring to, RP? There's a few messed up ones...to be clear, what I was suggesting was moving "Shia Islam in the Indian subcontinent" to "Shia Islam in South Asia". "Shia Islam in India" is probably fine where it is, but if there's a candidate for removal/merger as a redundant page, it is that one, because its scope is narrower. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, to be clear, what the user is trying to do is to merge all three articles into one Shia Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and redirect the India- and Pakistan-specific titles to this page. The structure broadly makes sense to me, but I think there is a lot more country-specific stuff for Pakistan which might warrant a separate article (e.g., the Shia-Sunni conflicts, the militant outfits, the Gilgit-Baltistan stuff etc.)
As to the "Indian subcontinent" vs "South Asia" debate, I don't have strong opinions. I used to favour "Indian subcontinent", but I have come to accept "South Asia" as a suitable alternative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I haven't reviewed the material enough to give an authoratative opinion, but from a theoretical/policy standpoint, it would be quite okay to have just one article, two articles (South Asia + Pakistan, or South Asia + India) or all three. It really depends on how the source material looks. Re: subcontinent; my preference varies based on subject material. If we were writing about species distributions or some such, I would recommend "Indian subcontinent" equally strongly. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, I have reverted your edit on the talk page here as the thread was started by EH and the edit was not helpful in anyway. I have asked him to open a thread. he will start if he wishes to. FYI, A discussion on exact same topic is being done elsewhere at Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Replace_human_shield_claim_of_unknown_origin_with_UK_claim. So it is upto him where he wishes to engage. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
PoK
To call Pakistani Occupied Kashmir anything other than occupied is in fact biased towards Pakistan. By referring to it as such, you are giving validity to the occupation of India by Pakistan, as you would understand if you look at the fact that Kashmir became a part of India in 1947, and Pakistan subsequently invaded it. Even the UN has requested that Pakistan leave Kashmir before anything goes further. I request that you revert your deletion of my edit, for the view that is currently expressed is indeed the biased one, and referring to Kashmir that is not a part of Indian control as occupied would be quite accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalobabo (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid that is Original Research. Wikipedia follows neutral WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources. Are there such sources that follow your terminology? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kautilya, I can see you reported one user but he reverted my two edits on that page. Kindly, add those two too in the report. —Harshil want to talk? 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
What's going on with this article? The second para of the lead reads well but the first paragraph is a mess of maybes and possiblies about Jainism. Could you take a look when you get the chance?--regentspark (comment) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess this is the explanation. I vaguely remember a similar editor who was indef-ed a few years ago. Pinging @Sitush:, in case he has an opinion. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not a subject that I know much about, sorry. And although I've come across some fairly pov-y accounts related to Jainism, I couldn't name one of them off the top of my head. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, a heavy dose of Jain POV no doubt. I will check how it happened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is how it changed to begin with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Check edits of User:Rishabh.rsd. He’s adding Jain POV in his every edits. Monitor his activities. Regards, —Harshil want to talk? 12:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Namaste, Kautilya3. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.
Hi, thanks for the update, still learning the protocol here. Think I accidentally linked the wrong source here it is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dpTpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is not original research it is from page 157 of the 2nd source it self. See paragragh 2. Should I go ahead and update the page back?
Ultrachez (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing it. Note that the page 157 is discussing the Dixon Mission, not the McNaughton proposals. So it is off-topic.
Secondly, the order of withdrawal was not the only issue. McNaughton proposals also made an equivalence between the Azad Kashmir forces (rebel forces) and the State forces, which India could not agree with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
And, there is also a lot of devil in the detail, which doesn't show up in a high level summary of the kind we write here. Jammu and Kashmir was princely state under the British suzerainty. It was allowed to have only a limited number of forces for keeping law and order, not for fighting wars with foreign countries. The Azad Kashmir forces, on the other hand, were made up of soldiers that fought in World War II in the British Indian Army, and they outnumbered the State Forces something like ten-to-one. So, even if it appears to a neutral world observer that a simultaneous withdrawal by India and Pakistan is perfectly fair, the ground situation meant that it amounted to handing the whole state over to the Azad Kashmir militias. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Elst
Is Elst a reliable source? this edit. Could you take a look? --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Short answer; no. He is a revisionist, and his work isn't treated as a serious scholarly work by anyone that I know. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm. What a day to talk about Koenraad Elst! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Gandhi in Kashmir
Gandhi visited Kashmir between 1-4 August 1947. He didn't go there on his own. He went the upon the request of Mountbatten, who wanted to ward off Nehru from going himself. Also, Gandhi had to take permission from the state for visiting, which in turn required him not to create any "political trouble". These are some of the facts that the ill-informed commentators miss.
When he reached the Valley he received a terrific reception. On his entry into Srinagar he was met by thousands of people on either side of the road, shouting “Mahatma Gandhi ki jai”. Since the bridge across the river Jhelum had been taken over by the crowd, Gandhi took a boat to the other side, where he addressed a public meeting of some 25,000 people, convened by Sheikh Abdullah’s wife. He spoke of spiritual rather than political matters, in Hindustani. His doctor Sushila Nayar, who was with him, wrote that “men and women flocked from the neighbouring villages to have a glimpse of the Mahatma. Friends and foes alike wonder at the hold he has on the masses. His mere presence seems to soothe them in [a] strange fashion”.[1]
In a note describing his meeting with the Maharaja Hari Singh and the Maharani, he wrote:
“both admitted that with the lapse of British Paramountcy the true Paramountcy of the people of Kashmir would commence. However much they might wish to join the Union, they would have to make the choice in accordance with the wishes of the people. How they could be determined was not discussed at that interview”.[1]
In a public meeting, he said:
He could say that on 15 August, all being well, legally the State of Kashmir and Jammu would be independent. But he was sure that the State would not remain in that condition for long after 15 August. It had to join either the [Indian] Union or Pakistan. It had a predominantly Muslim population. But he saw that Sheikh Saheb had fired Kashmiris with local patriotism. (Sushila Nayar's notes)[2]
Christopher Birdwood adds an interesting reaction after the tribal invasion of Kashmir:
As to the tribal invasion, the people should not flee. They should learn to be brave and fearless and lay down their lives in defence of their homes. He would not mind if they died at their posts. He regretted very much that the tribesmen were apparently led by former officers of the I.N.A., which had valiantly fought under the able leadership of the late Shri Subhas Bhose.... If he was in their place he would wean the tribesmen from their error! They could meet Sheikh Abdullah, if they thought he was harming either Islam or India [meaning, present day 'India' and 'Pakistan' combined]. He reiterated his belief that, the Princes being the creation of British imperialism and the British having quitted India, the people in the States were now their own masters, and the Kashmiris must therefore decide, without any coercion or show of it from within or without, to which Dominion it should belong. The rule was of universal application.[3]
Birdwood comments:
I have often wondered what his contribution would have been to the conflict of ideology which has come to divide the world. If his advice to the Kashmiris is in any way a guide, it would surely indicate a far firmer condemnation of totalitarian oppression than is generally attributed to the apostle of non-violence. To approve of death at one's post in defence of a cause sugests that there would have been approval of resistance to tyranny in any form—and I cannot believe that Gandhi would not have recognised tyranny however subtly disguised it may be... would it not have received the unqualified condemnation of the Mahatma?[3]
Thank you for intervening on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divya_Dwivedi I don't know how you did it but you do could resolve something that kind of looked like unending. I think the subject is highly controversial in India. If you could keep the page in watch it will be of help. I see that you know the context quite well. WWorringer (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome.
I watched the whole Big Fight debate on Youtube, and I must confess I agree with Irfan Habib's comment:
“She was really frivolous, had no idea what she is talking about and the context of the debate. Not sure if she has anything to do with the Left though,” he wrote on Twitter.
If she is to make authoritative comments on "Hinduism", I guess she has to know everything there is to know about the subject. Just reading one D. N. Jha book, who is a maverick himself, isn't going to get her very far. Most of all, I wonder how she can grow at all at IIT Delhi, which is a kind of intellectual wilderness. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
As per Talk:Divya Dwivedi, these two pages were made with promotional intention and user pushed names of these two people in several articles. How it can be removed? Will you help me in doing so?—Harshil want to talk? 10:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Harsil, the right thing to do would be to create a page on the book, and make both these pages redirect to the book. The authors are not notable in my view, but the book is.
However, I don't have the energy or interest in working on this. I would suggest just brutally deleting all the junk they added and retain the factual information along with what the book reviews say. Somebody will come along eventually to make them into better articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
On my to-do list ..... ∯WBGconverse 14:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpa kaur (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2018
You are invited to join the discussion at Operation_Python#March_2019. ∯WBGconverse 07:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
∯WBGconverse 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
