User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hotspot

This article may be of interest to you: 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Pakistan.VR _talk 05:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There are bigger problems in the world than the reputation of Tablighi Jamaat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your message on my previous moving ip's Talk-page

Hello. I am posting here as my IP has changed since last time (when it was 117.194.239.82 where you left a message regarding "muslim conquests in....".

I would like to know if you have personally confirmed that the reference provided does indeed support the exact statement that was put up there (deviousness is a quality amply given unto those we are dealing with here and I am sure you are aware too).

This map on WIKI itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalji_dynasty#/media/File:Delhi_Sultanate_under_Khalji_dynasty_-_based_on_A_Historical_Atlas_of_South_Asia.svg - very clearly illustrates that khilji/kafur took a one-time tribute (as in a one-time raid) in some places in South India. Those parts are in light-green and shown as "tributaries" (that too one-time). They never controlled (dark-green) ANY of South India or Northeast India or also Orissa and its adjoining parts. Though its obvious this map is on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalji_dynasty.

As an aside....and I hope this does not more you....This "we ruled India for XX years" grunt - which is an utterly puke-inducing repugnant lie - is getting too far. FACT is the Far-South (Kerala/Tamilnadu/Tulunadu/Coorg and adjoining parts further North) and Northeast India were NEVER under muslim rule. Yes there were minor disruptions or scares like in the early-1300s and mid-1300s or the mid-1700s and late-1700s but they barely lasted a generation and even in that period those were raids rather than controlled rule like Ashoka the Great ruled most of South Asia from the Iran border to Myanmar or Akbar's rule over North India. Its this lie and the following propaganda that should not be allowed on WIKI that brought me to make that edit which however I believe to be correct. They may take pride in breaking centuries/millenia old temples in North India while conveniently eschewing that the Hindu Kings (who seamlessly moved between Hinduism and Jainism and Buddhism for millennia) of the Far-South built mosques and dargahs for their muslim subjects. Whether it was the Kodungalloor Mosque in Thrissur District in Kerala built by the then Hindu Cheras in 600s ACE or the Nagore Dargah in Nagapattinam District in Tamilnadu built by a local king there in the 1600s ACE. Several other lesser-known places of worship were consecrated by the non-muslim lords for their muslim subjects over centuries. In fact that there is far greater communal amity, far fewer terrorists, and far lesser fanaticism in these two regions (The Far-South and the NE) has to do with the fact that throughout benevolent and charitable people ruled there. Unlike as in post-1000 ACE Delhi and large swathes of North India/pak/bangladesh where bar a few like Akbar or Sher Shah we know what ilk many of them were of. Not meaning to demean anybody on the basis of region or "group". Just saying it the way it is (or at least I read the facts that way). Regardless of whether you agree or not (and allow my edit to stay or otherwise I shall not make any more edits on this page.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.239.230 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You are presumably talking about your edits to the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent page. Most of the content on that page is reliably sourced. If you disagree with anything there, you need to raise an issue on the article's talk page and achieve WP:CONSENSUS before you make edits.

Please note that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You cannot use it as citation for edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Hospital Beds by country

Hi, I reverted your last edit that reverted my previous edit. I added a comment, and explained: According to reference document, Turkey had 38098 ICU beds in 2018, and a population of 80.8 million. This makes 47.1 beds/100K (not 29). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.132.196 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Name Change of the article "Persecution of Chinese Indians"

Hello Mr Kautilya,

I believe the article Persecution of Chinese Indians completely violates WP:NOPV. I'm writing this to you after seeing some of your Indian History related edits. Can you please provide your view on the discussion Talk:Persecution of Chinese Indians? I think the name should be Internment of Chinese-Indians, similar to what mentioned in Internment of Japanese Americans, an incident happened during WWII. Also, I'll really appreciate, if you can help me find people working on Indian history to clean-up many such articles.--Methu1 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Methu1, thanks for telling me about this page. I have watch-listed it and will be happy to participate in any discussions there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kautilya.--Methu1 (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Need a proper live citation

It seems that with your recent edit to Tablighi jamaat ,there is no such live citation so reverting,if I have made a mistake welcome you to discuss on my talk page Anatomycbmcb (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anatomycbmcb, there was a technical error with the citation, which I have now fixed. Still, when it is long-standing content, the normal practice is to tag it with {{failed verification}} rather than to delete the content. You should delete it only if you are confident that no reliable sources for the claim exist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The citation that you have mentioned did not support the contents which is present there ,there is no mention of the given lines ,in the citation,so reverting Anatomycbmcb (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

i not understand

you msg on my talk page what do you mean I don't understand Royal711 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the tablighi page

Hey Surpalsingh (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted under an WP:AfD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wire (India)

For the edit I had made on The Wire, Tweet was a reliable source. What is the basis to discredit it? It was from the official account of Hoshiarpur Police.

I've posted a discussion topic on the Talk page of the article. Pls share your thoughts there

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:RS, to which I have referred you multiple times, says that Wikipedia is based on reliable, published sources.

Tweets are not "published". And nothing says that the police are "reliable". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Section on Myths about Hinduism has been deleted

The edit on hinduism had several references to reliable sources from history books, journal, other wikipedia pages. I am not sure why the entire content has been deleted? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs)

Even though you cite some reliable sources, there is not much correlation between what they say and your text. For example, you says "the four qualities are misinterpreted" and cite this BBC article. Where does the BBC say anything was "misinterpreted"?

You are essentially writing your own opinions on Wikipedia. But it is not Wikipedia's purpose to give you an opportunity to publish your personal views. Please read carefully the policies of Wikipedia given on your talk page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War 1962

Hi, I'm not sure why you have taken offence at my edits or insisted that they are an attempt to paraphrase a historians words.

As I stated on the other thread, the hunt for the Dalai Lama DID prompt increased Chinese military aggression in Tibet and the border regions of Ladakh. That is what is written in the book and is backed up by these three independent sources: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/apr/01/archive-dalai-lama-flees-to-india-1959, , https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/60-years-ago-dalai-lama-escaped-china-ruled-tibet-all-you-need-to-know-2008670, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,864579-1,00.html. All I said was that China resumed military patrols in April 1962 after India refused to agree to their terms- that is a fact.

Furthermore, here is another source verifying that the Chinese signalled their intent to start forward patrols in Ladakh in April 1962 on p104: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_bjADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=chinese+army+patrols+ladakh+april+1962&source=bl&ots=bPra_eME2D&sig=ACfU3U2xT4FzI_tR1n3ozKt6mjMXjH7Y0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3p-GG3PDoAhVmTRUIHVejA9UQ6AEwCnoECA4QKQ#v=onepage&q=chinese%20army%20patrols%20ladakh%20april%201962&f=false. Considering these extensive sources, what is your reasoning for your incomplete editing and assertions that I am attempting to include my own opinions, when I am clearly not? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs)

I haven't taken "offence", but I am certainly getting irritated that you are not getting the point. WP:SYNTHESIS tells you that you cannot draw conclusions of your own from the published sources. You cannot even hint at them. Period. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at it.

Hey there, I'm aware of what's happening at Andhra Pradesh Medtech Zone Limited and I find it very questionable, especially with that SPA that popped up to restore the content. I've asked Berean Hunter to look into matters as well, since I smell sock/meat editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I am not involved at that page. But I have watch-listed it now, and will see if I can help. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits

Please reply on the talk page of that article. Looks like you are running away from the facts, so that's why you ain't replying.. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Responded. Let me reiterate that, if I see any further disruption from you on that page, I will be reporting you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Urdu

Hello, The statements you made on Urdu article were reverted by Gotitbro, please return that edits, i don't made that statements. you and Anupam made that edits, Gotitbro says that edits are like sock.ok it would be like sock, but i only requested to correct it, i don't made edits. -- ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dear Kautilya3, For your tireless contribution to Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque and 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi, you deserve this barnstar. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Aaqib Anjum. That is very kind of you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Kasim Razvi

Hi there I have made one change regarding calling the situation "police action" to military intervention as its widely regarded an annexation and Police action was just a cover for the military invasion is it okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3662:DD00:B597:7C53:697B:B4EB (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar purpose

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, yesterday Pine asked "What do you have in mind for the purpose of the barnstar?". From the conversation over at the India notice-boards I can recall only two things -

• To find an alternative barnstar to the current Hinduism barnstar. So additionally the purpose would also be borrowed - "The Hinduism Barnstar is awarded to those who make outstanding contributions to Hinduism-related content."
• The symbolism of the diya itself is the unwritten purpose - Bringing light into the darkness.

However would you be able to add more specificity to this as asked for over at the talk page (edit: or want to add anything else); or is the above enough? DTM (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dear Kautilya3, For your tireless contribution to so many articles, you deserve this barnstar.Souniel Yadav (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC) దయచేసి మీ ఇ-మేల్ చూసుకోండి/ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಈ-ಮೇಲ್ ನೋಡಿ.Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Souniel Yadav. Welcome back. I prefer to keep all my Wikipedia discussions to be on Wikipedia itself. Enjoy editing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

నేను ఇక్కడ ఇక్కడ ప్రస్తావించలేను, కాబట్టి దయచేసి మీ ఈ-మేలను చూడండి — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souniel Yadav (talk • contribs) 10:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Republic TV

I don't want to involve in edit warring. You seem to be experienced user that is why I wonder why you reverted my edit and just added a template of NPOV by Twinkle; you should have clarified it firther as I don't se NPOV violation in my edit. Please read WP:RS and look little harder at WP:PARTISAN if you haven't. I don't think these sources have a reputation for fact-checking. You can visit WP:RSP if you are inclined towards these sources. — GargAvinash ^talk 14:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi GargAvinash, you made the claim that certain sources are WP:PARTISAN. And now you made the additional claim that they don't have reputation for fact-checking. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate these claims. My experience or lack of experience has nothing to do with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to understand what WP:ONUS is. I have not added any information rather than I added 'names of the sources'. Just observed your talk page and your list of 'top edited pages'. I am not here to oppose or support an ideology on Wikipedia. I don't want further communication with you on this edit. — GargAvinash ^talk 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, that edit is a violation of WP:NPOV which says, among other things, don't state facts as opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Our recent reverts

Hi Kautilya3! After having a second look at the ultra-hindutva and propaganda-laden edit in Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb‎, I have become curious about a word I have never really paid attention to before, viz. votebank. I have just changed the lead of that page to make it clear that this term has zero currency outside the Indian political discourse, and I wonder what you think the about the overall make up of the page. Just like in India, in most democracies, communal votes are a common thing, but they are usually not seen as "harmful to the principles of representative democracy", but an essential part of it, especially in parliamentary democracies. I wonder, after reading Kajtu (2011)[1] (cited in the article), whether its use is mainly restricted to Hindutva rhetoric, or also in wider use by other factions? –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Good find, Austronesier. I never knew such an article existed. Neither did I know that M. N. Srinivas coined the term. The article looks good, but it can probably be expanded considerably. Hindutva or not, I think the problem is real. And Hindutva itself has the world's largest vote bank in the world. So they speak from "experience". We are all waiting with the bated breath for the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, which is going to be the quintessential vote bank election. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Land

While writing Swapnastha, a Gujarati poet, I came across an award "Soviet Land Nehru Award" which he had received. I have seen this award listed in many writers articles but the award itself has no article. When I searched for it, I found this auction website where medal and its description is listed. It is an interesting medal. HI:सोवियत_लैंड_नेहरू_पुरस्कार is there but has no helpful information. The auction website says: The Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding is an international award presented by the Government of India in honour of Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister. It was established in 1965 and is administered by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) to people "for their outstanding contribution to the promotion of international understanding, goodwill and friendship among people of the world". The money constituent of this award is 2.5 million rupees. The Soviet Land is a magazine published in all major Indian languages by the Soviet embassy in New Delhi. Now we have Jawaharlal Nehru Award (which has above auction site description) but it seems different and list of recipient is small and does not include Swapnastha. So I searched about Soviet Land magazine and found here: The Soviet Information Center, for example, sends out half a dozen magazines, some of them in glossy format. The Soviet Land, for instance, is printed in 13 Indian languages. News agents throughout the country sell this magazine for about 25 cents. According to official statistics, more than half a million copies of The Soviet Land printed in 13 languages were distributed throughout India in 1979. In comparison, the American magazine, Span, has less than one-third of the Russian circulation.

So it seems that Soviet Land was a widely circulated Soviet propaganda magazine published in India in 13 languages. And probably Soviet Land or Soviet Embassy gave award called "Soviet Land Nehru Award" to communists or others in India. I have not researched deep enough but these are my initial findings. As you are interested in Indian politics and history, I am contacting you. If you or any other editor interested in Soviet Land or Soviet Land Nehru Award, please create these articles. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, all those MiG's that India bought from the Soviets, paying in Rupees, what do you think the Soviets did with all those rupees? There were also loads of books written by Leftist Indian authors, which were sold for throw-away prices. The Americans, on the other hand, sold us text books, which had a bigger impact in the long run. The American propaganda was more subtle and in the end more successful. Why do you think every engineering college in India uses the American system today? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please check my new message on the talk page of Narendra Modi

Please check my new message on the talk page of Narendra Modi.

You said: "By the way, your use of the Shift key on your keyboard requires serious attention." Oh really? I did that on purpose to express my feelings about that article.

Remember: If you want to talk about the negatives of Prime Minister Modi, do it on a social media forum, rather than an ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. --Akb20 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

Yes, I checked your message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

possible ANI/AIV

Here check, directly saying the user will pursue such edits. Here the user made several violation including edit-warring. What will be best to your knowledge. Dey subrata (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And also keep an eye on the article please. Dey subrata (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

For edit warring you need to follow the WP:3RR drill. Otherwise, you need to discuss it on the talk page. It is a content dispute. Doesn't belong at ANI/AIV. (The article is already on my watch list.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dispute comes when source is added, the user is adding unsourced materials. Dey subrata (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Related redirects

Can you please help me to add the other related redirects to my deletion nomination here?- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I have no idea how to nominate redirects for deletion. Never done it before. But I am also thinking, let us get through this one first and then we can try and nominate the rest later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge

Hello Kautilya3/Archives. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

India 10,000 challenge

Hello Kautilya3/Archives. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, Dey subrata (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we really need awards for reverting the gremlins changing "Pakistan" to "India" everywhere! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian territory of Pakistan occupied Kashmir! Jingoism is going through the roof. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC help?

I've been in a dispute with an unregistered user for quite some time on categorization of a page and have made an RfC. You're clearly a person who knows how Wikipedia works, could I get your two cents please? Docktuh (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ashoka

Hi. I understand that Ashoka is you favourite ruler. But do you consider him as the greatest in human history? Ever greater than the Romans, Umayyads, Abbasids, Timurids, Ottomans, Safavids? Isn't it not an exaggeration? There are other candidates from Hindustan, such as Alauddin Khalji, Muhammad bin Tughluq, Akbar, Shah Jahan and especially Aurangzeb, who probably had a bigger (considering the other Mauryan map with gaps) and wealthier empire and easily defeated the British.--Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Haven't you asked me this earlier, in your previous life perhaps? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb article

Hi, Kautilya. I'd like your input about the occurrence of "is" as it appears in the Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb article as follows: "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, is the culture of the central plains of northern India." @Shrestha.shome: attempted to edit it as follows: "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, is (the) alleged culture of the central plains of northern India." That edit was reverted as a presumptive |WP:NPOV violation. I would agree that Shrestha.shome's edit was non-neutral if "alleged" is construed as "accused but not proven or convicted", but not if construed as "asserted to be true or to exist" or "questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called". In giving Shrestha.shome the benefit of that second construction, I think his presumed intent merits more than a mere reversion.

It seems to me that Shrestha.shome was attempting merely to address the systemic bias inherent in asserting, from a lexical POV, that Ganges–Yamuna Culture constitutes or equates to the culture of the central plains of northern India. Such an assertion implies a truth value that, from a sociolinguistics POV, can't be measured or quantified on an objective basis despite any pervasive agreement with the statement. (Even if was quantified according to some standard, there's no corresponding reference for its basis in the article.) Thus, "is" entails a systemic bias that casts the entire statement as an Ipse dixit with its own non-neutral POV. From a lexicographical perspective, Shrestha.shome's sentence is no worse than the original, whose the insipid use "is" could be disregarded in a casual context.

If I'm right in intuiting what Shrestha.shome was attempting with his edit, he might otherwise have offered: "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, relates to the culture of the central plains of northern India." Such an iteration implies the sense that (a) Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb is the Hindustani term/name for Ganges–Yamuna Culture, and (b) that he central plains of northern India entails that culture. The way the article stands, I empathize with the complaint that the opening sentence is semantically and sociolinguistically unsupportable. It sounds a bit like, "Cajun (a patois of Acadian) is the culture southeast and south central Louisiana." Well, yes, true, to an extent, but...

So, my question is this: How would you feel about changing the opening sentence either to "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, relates to the culture of the central plains of northern India" or "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, entails the culture of the central plains of northern India" or "Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb (Hindustani for Ganges–Yamuna Culture), also spelled as Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb, applies to the culture of the central plains of northern India"? Cheers. --Kent Dominic 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi. There are differing opinions about how a paragraph in the lead of this article should be worded. Your opinion will be appreciated. Please weigh in on this if you can.Holenarasipura (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don' think this new user got the point.Holenarasipura (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

The bot is not working. Because of the page move, the archiving page definition also changed. Check the archiving page. Change the bot or manually archive. Dey subrata (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it wasn't working. There were two threads, which was the minimum defined. In general, there should always be a few threads left to show that there is activity. You shouldn't be archiving everything! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For Talk:2019 Jamia Millia Islamia attack, I don't know where you moved the threads. There is no subpage for that talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It has a archiving page. Add the bot, it may itself link. Wait let me find. Dey subrata (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here Dey subrata (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is "Millia" in the page title, not "Milia". I moved it now. (See the problems caused by manual archiving?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not my fault after all, who ever created the article in the first place. And yes, the bot could not link to the archiving page due to mismatch of name. Dey subrata (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kashmir

Hi Kautilya3 The text I added on Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) I was in process of being edited. I was in process of adding the references. Just let me know what changes you need.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

Maharaja gulab Singh (a Hindu and the relative of Harri Singh) originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the First Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution further invalidated The Instrument of Accession.

Alistair Lamb also disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession."

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

Additionally Maharaja had no authority to sign the Instrument of Accession because he was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters. Therefore the Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, the Instrument of Accession it has no legal standing." -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs)

Johnleeds1, it looks like you have been around on Wikipedia for a while. But you are forgetting the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia as a medium that distributes knowledge, generally, scholarly knowledge. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to argue anything. If you continue on this route, I am afraid you are going to get sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the text and I could see what you mean. Kautilya3 I may need some help with this. I was in the middle of making these changes and adding the references but I need your help. There are multiple parties to these treaties and many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. What I was trying to get to was, may be, create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties on these treaties. So for example some of the text above by Alistair Lamb is used by the government of Pakistan to illustrate its view. Additionally the Sikh Empire, the UN and the British Government are also involved in these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but many of these treaties relate to one another. Some how we need to show how they relate to one another. That will enhance the experience for the reader, the reader will be able to click on a link and obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties that we could use for references. Kautilya3 what do you think is the best way to enhance these pages.Johnleeds1 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not yet see anything encyclopaedic about what you are trying to do. It is all an essay-like exercise with your personal views.

As for my personal views, I don't see any of the problems you see, except the latest unilateral revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. And, that is a battle to be fought in the Supreme Court of India, not on Wikipedia pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Supreme Court of India was founded on 26 January 1950. While these treaties were signed a hundred years before its creation. They have nothing to do with India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law.Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The the reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. I wanted to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Inputs and help needed for the mentioned dispute resolution

Fellow editor given your interest areas and distinguished contributions on Wiki, i request u to kindly find time to participate in the below dispute Resolution discussion. [2] under the Heading Hizbul Mujahideen. The problem arose when the user mentioned below reverted few times my edits pertaining to ISI links of Hizbul Mujahideen. The statement was already present on the article and i just linked and removed the clutter from this particular content only. But the other editor reverted the edits without giving any particular reason. I request you to find sometime for this dispute resolution. [3] The user has also commented on me user id by questioning whether I am from the Indian department of defence simply because I have DoD in my User id. Rather than talking to the point they editor has been making ambiguous statements and preaching civility while straightaway ignoring my arguement and calling me "trout OP" on forum. Guidance will be really appreciated. TY AnadiDoD (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't recruit people like that fight your causes. See WP:CANVASSING.

But I agree with the other editor that DRN is premature. He is not convinced by your sources. So you need to find better sources. Did you check all the sources listed in the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you inferred something very different from my statements and that was not my intent. I apologize and I am not recruiting for people to fight for me. Just thought if you could provide me with some inputs but Alas! It went the opposite way. Sorry for bothering you. AnadiDoD (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked at the talk page discussion we had. The editor was having some issue with a mention in the article(not related to me in any way) about the founder of the organisation being trained by ISI. I have clearly mentioned that i have no objection to removing that statement.

I wanted to add just the sentence where the support of ISI has been mentioned and not attributed to any person living or dead. But he didn't even acknowledge this arguement which forced my to get some third party opinions to resolve this dispute. I may have used a wrong forum but I was not aware of any other way. I even told the editor beforehand. AnadiDoD (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff to the edit that is in dispute? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Now coming to sources the other editor is of the opinion that being an Indian I am making bogus statements about the issue which according to him still is about ISI support for a person and not the outfit. I gave him credible international sources which have mentioned clearly that the outfit is/was setup by Pak support. These are the citations on which have based my argument. [4] [5] [6] AnadiDoD (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

i am attaching some links wherein the edits are compared. My edits of changing Azad Kashmir to more neutral and accepted term Pak Administered Kashmir was also reverted by the editor. [7] [8] (this was the first edit) and revert AnadiDoD (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

These are the diffs where I added citations mentioned above. These were again reverted as mentioned in the first diff link above. [9] AnadiDoD (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the standalone diff of my first edit. I nowhere mentioned anything about a person living/dead which is the main point of contention. I didn't even add the word terrorist. I don't know why then it is so hard for the other reader that too after detailed deliberation to accept this.

I agree it was premature to go to DRM but what resort I had when the other editor is straightaway ignoring my arguement and accusing me of being pro-india, insinuating on DRN that DoD in my Username means indian department of defence. Sole purpose to go to DRN was to get third party views. Still of you think i was wrong to do so then i am sorry to say that a community cannot thrive when all perspectives and opinions are not treated equally. [10] AnadiDoD (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that edit was not proper. It was sourced content. Presumably whoever wrote it did it in a way it would accurately summarise the source. And you came and changed it without saying anything about the source. It destroys the WP:Text-source integrity and counts as vandalism. Anybody looking at that edit would revert, even if they may not explain it the same way.

"What resort do I have?" Well, you can start by explaining why the word "allegedly" is not needed, and then listen to the other editors carefully to find out what sort of sources would satisfy them to eschew "allegedly". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But the sources clearly mention that the support to the outfit is a fact proven. Nowhere the sources use the word allegedly and isn't concurrence a better phrasing for it. I provided the sources in the very next edit if you have seen all of them. And what could have been the issues with replacing Azad Kashmir by Pak Administered Kashmir ? Isn't that revert a violation of the code mentioned above ? AnM2002 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And if you gone through talk page discussion he is nowhere talking about support to the outfit (my arguement) but support to a person to which I have no issue at all ? AnM2002 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't even for once talked about the word 'allegedelly' if he/she had problem with the removal of that word(according to you) he just should have mentioned it and I would have discussed that too. What I am supposed to do when the other editor is going round and round and not coming to the part which is creating problem. AnM2002 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

AnadiDoD, sorry I don't have much time today to look into this. But you can save your time and others' time by making clear and precise proposals. As I have mentioned, your original edit that got reverted was not proper. If you want to propose a new edit, please state it clearly, and use full citations so that we can see what you are referring to. In general, newspapers are unlikely to be reliable for discussing secret service affiliations. But there are plenty of scholarly sources cited on the page. I have asked you whether you consulted them, and received no reply. So please do your research and create sample text in your sandbox with WP:Full citations and then I can comment. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It would have been really appreciated if you read the replies a bit more carefully as I mentioned scholarly articles as well. You only saw the first revert and ignored the others which i mentioned(had due citations). Sorry for bothering you but i hope u understand that 'Wikipedia won't accomplish its ideals if we are not ready to COOPERATE. Thank you soo much and sorry for wasting your time again.AnM2002 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion didn't "fail". I told you what you need to do to go forward. Whether you do it or not is up to you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed it because I was going to add a new thread with "precise proposal" as you said. AnM2002 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @User:Kautilya3 I am attaching the discussion as well as diffs regarding the topic. I have even gone through the already cited sources and mentioned them in the discussion kindly find time to put forward your opinion. Diff-[11] Discussion-[12] AnM2002 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

AnM2002, Once it has been reverted once, you shouldn't be making edits until WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Recall that I had said right at the outset that those sources were weak and you need to check what the scholarly sources say. There are plenty of scholarly sources already cited on the page. Have you checked what they say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kautilya3 yes I have gone through the references already cited in the page and have also made a list of them on the talk page discussion. That's why asked you to take a look at the discussion. AnM2002 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kautilya3 what's the issue with the references I used I know one of them is an opinion piece but the other is scholarly article from [13] isn't it a good reference? AnM2002 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kautilya3 how am I supposed to build consensus when the other editor is not willing to cooperate. Everytime i try to say something he labels me as being biased/associated with Indian Army etc. What do i do? AnM2002 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to give WP:Full citations and quotations that establish the claim. I have suggested that you use your sandbox to do this, but there is nothing in your sandbox yet.

Globalsecurity.org is a user-contributed site, much like Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source. Never mind that the Pakistani pages use it to beat their own drum. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @User:Kautilya3 for your views and removing any doubts that Wikipedia is based on "cooperation and consensus."AnM2002 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Babri Masjid article

In the Babri Masjid article, there is a sentence in the lead which reads, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site." Please change it to, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site which was a Hindu temple over which the Babri Masjid was built." Thanks (you can cite more references if you please)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E9C:B0EC:A875:9459:1584:EC4D (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:CANVASSING or WP:PROXYING requests. If the page is protected, you can make an edit request or simply suggest the change on the talk page to bring it to the other editors' attention.

I intend to revert any such requests that come to my talk page in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 - Tinkar

Tinkar Village

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

You are repeatedly displaying a poorly sourced and controversial content. You are not accepting other's suggestions or editing and repeatedly denying it. You are using words that intimidate new users and even asking unnecessary questions as if you own that article. You are asking to see other controversial article such as Kalapani territory.

That's why I concluded, this Kautilya3 is working in wikipedia without good faith and promoting unilateral and controversial matters.

Ram Adhikari (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh

Yes, Kautilya3 is working against WP:AGF. In this revert he incorectly assumed Akbar was of 9 years age in 1560(1560-1542 = 18) and implied that I have incorrectly referenced. And, then, removed cited material without proper discussion on talk page. Dhawangupta (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dhawangupta: the editor you are replying to was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks. If you are going to do the same, expect the same. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You are right that I had to check that first. Indeed I just tried to verify the claims by the "blocked" editor and they appeared false. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		It finally came down to choosing between this barnstar and the Special Barnstar. I guess this one fits. This is just an overdue thanks for all that you do over here, and among the many things that you do do is 'think'. Thinkers are rare, you mentioned something like that once on my talk page. I know you don't put barnstars on your userpage which is cool in its own way, someday I guess I will have to dive into the archives to find mine when nostalgia overpowers. Thanks :) DTM (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot DTM. That is the nicest barnstar I have received!

I dont' think 'thinkers' are rare though. We can all think, if we put our mind to it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

DTM (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Believe me DTM, Kautilya3 is definitely a philosopher. How they put things in issues which are sensitive and controversial, that's much more than being great. 😷 - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hi,

Please keep an eye on the mass edit happening by replacing cites in the page Kargil War‎. Thank You

Outlander^07@talk 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me Outlander07. I believe Aman.kumar.goel is watching that page. I am a bit tied up with other topics. Aman, can you take a look? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Demchok. See Talk:Demchok#Merge_revert. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Where? I don't see a lack of an assumption of good faith in the linked discussion. Could you please clarify?--regentspark (comment) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Kautilya called a merger that I enacted a "disruption" and "undiscussed" and placed a level 3 warning on my talk page, despite the fact that the merge was clearly proposed here in a discussion at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog and Talk:Charding Nullah#Wikilinks + British maps in the lead.

In the same discussions, Kautilya responded 7 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) without contesting the proposed merger, and also made a suggestion to the drafts. I also reminded Kautilya about the proposals in the discussion multiple times, including this request:

What are your thoughts on these two proposals? I can draft them in userspace, if it helps
— MarkH21 22:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

and this request:

See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts).
— MarkH21 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

After all of that, calling the edits "disruptive" and slapping a level 3 warning is hardly assuming good-faith in editing. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, you have been making a huge number of edits both to main pages and talk pages at rapid speed. One can hardly keep up with everything you say. When I queried a revert of my edit, which was itself spread out over half-a-dozen edits, I was looking for an answer to my query, not proposals for wholesale reorganisation of other pages. Moreover, if you intended to reorganise those pages, you need to raise the issue on their talk pages, and get the views of their editors. Merging a village or villages across a border that has been contested for more than half a century, currently undergoing widespread friction, would certainly count as a contentious edit. You would be best advised to file a request for merge for doing such a merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The edit summary of my merge (source, target) clearly points to the discussion where the merger was proposed. If you revert those edits, you're expected to at least read the edit summary.
2. You even made a made a suggestion to the draft itself. It's implausible that you didn't see the proposals at all in any of your 7 edits, after the reminders, and given your suggestion to the draft itself.
3. It's not required to post a formal discussion at each of the talk pages. Perhaps I should've used {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} tags on the respective articles, okay. Perhaps I should've opened one more separate discussion after the several reminders in our discussion, sure.
4. The point is that you reverting the mergers with the edit summaries Please stop this disruption, Reverting undiscussed merge, which makes no sense, and slapping a level 3 disruptive editing warning are a massive failure of assuming good faith and a poor description of the situation. You can contest WP:BOLD edits. You can contest mergers that were informally proposed in a discussion that you did not contest yet. But you cannot label it as disruptive editing on the basis of you not having personally reviewed the proposals and on the basis of the proposal not having its own separately formatted section.

Again, WP:RM is for moves only and is not for mergers. The merger proposal process just involves creating a discussion on the talk page and using the {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} tags on the articles themselves. That's it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a separate proposal section for the other half of the quoted proposal, regarding the splitting of Charding Nullah, here. I'll also be fine with opening one for the merger proposal of Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, should you still find the merger unagreeable given the latest discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Erik-the-red (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Erik-the-red (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look

Another new user with same old pov pushing strategy at the news article here. Please keep an eye, I've already made two reverts, though polciy based, but still don't want to get in edit war. I've warned the user too, but it seems like the users sole intention is to remove all the controversies from the page. Drat8sub (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you have it under control. But the COVID stuff has been removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Does not seem like those kind of controversy that to be included. But for this protest page name change, do you know where to bring this issues, I think its a gross violation of privileges, above that the user was blocked before. Drat8sub (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Shaheen Bagh protests? I raised a query on the talk page. We have to wait for the editor to respond. If they don't, we need to ask for the page to be moved back. If he does respond, we need to discuss and reach a CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved the page again though but with a capital "P". Ping me atleast, I've not seen your comment here before, just now seen after seeing the thread at the article talk page. Not a talk page stalker as I don't like being stalked also. Bdw, 31 watchers at my talk page ! Till date I thought wikipedia shows 30 generally but 31 makes me wonder what valuables they are getting at my page. Anyway, here insights of experienced editor would be helpful to reach a consensus. Drat8sub (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drat8sub, thanks for moving the page back. Even though capitalising "P" isn't a good idea, it isn't a big deal.

Most people have the box ticked on their preferences to add pages they edit to their watch lists. They aren't "stalking". Stalking is when people check your contribs list and follow you around. You can't invite people to AfD's on their talk pages though. It is considered WP:CANVASSING. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not CANVAS, addressed you per APPNOTE which says, Editors known for expertise in the field and who have made substantial edits to the topic and along with that addressing through neutral message. Thats fine. Drat8sub (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Some are surely keeping eyes on my contrib only...you know who they are, told you earlier during the panipat war. Drat8sub (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Linkrot

Hi, Kautilya. When you supply a link such you did here, it would really help if it was a permanent link. This link that you gave becomes useless as soon as the discussion has been archived. Please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | tålk 09:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, yup, sorry, I was still groggy at the time and didn't pay attention! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my link this morning was all right. You are talking about the old message. Sure, I will keep this in mind. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your link this morning was a great help for me. But you wouldn't have had to go root around in the archives if you had done a permanent link to begin with, while the section was still on the page, which takes two seconds one second. Sorry, I know I get obsessed, I won't go on about it any more. (It's a little personal since I created the Simple diff and link guide.) Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Battle of Trichinopoly(1682)

Could you take a look at this? --regentspark (comment) 13:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The disgraceful scholars of India

A man called Tapan Bose, described as a former "secretary-general of South Asia Forum for Human Rights based in Kathmandu", wrote the following in The Wire:

It is noteworthy that nearly a hundred years after the signing of the Treaty of Sugali, in 1911 the Almora Gazetteer recorded that the Kali River “is formed by the union of two headwaters: the Kalapani river that originates below the Lipulekh Pas and the Kuthi Yankit river that rises below the Limpiyadhura range. Both the streams have been termed ‘Kali River’ on different occasions. The Kali River serves as the boundary between Uttarakhand (Kumaon region) and Nepal from Limpiyadhura (30.227°N 80.920°E). The Lipulekh pass, as well as the Limpayadhura pass (or Limpiya pass), are on Nepal border with Tibet”.

I went "what?". I had read the Almora Gazetter and I never saw such a thing.

Upon Googling to see where the text came from, I was amazed to find that he was copying my content on Wikipedia for the Sharda River page. But he didn't just copy it. He doctored it by mixing up the Almora Gazetter's words and my words and changing "Uttarakhand's border with Tibet" to "Nepal border with Tibet"!

His LinkedIn page says that he has been in this position for 22 years and 10 months. He has also been the "Working President" of the Pakistan-India Peoples' Forum for Peace and Democracy for 18 years and 1 month. The man also wrote for the Economic and Political Weekly, and even has an academia.edu page, no idea why. He doesn't even have a PhD.

You just can't trust the so-called scholars of India. You have to check, double-check and cross-check everything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Amusing; I'll try to remember this post for future reference. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this, and agree with Joshua Jonathan, it's worth a bookmark! –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation

Hi. Can you tell me if Radha Kumud Mookerji (1989, first edition 1949), Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist, p.36; (partly) reprint 2005, Rigvedic education, in S.R. Bakshi et al. (eds.), Early Aryans to Swaraj, p.66

vedana-sadhanena Vedena vedyamaviditva kim sadhayati iti

translates as

The Veda is useless learning to him who only recites its Rik without comprehending its meaning.

I'll bet it doesn't. As far as I can see, it translates as

• vedana: "feeling," perception
• sadhanena: ?
• vedena: ?
• vedyama: pretending to be a physician
• viditva:
• kim: what? how? whence? wherefore? why?
• sadhayati: destroy, ruin, exhaust
• iti: in this manner, thus

And is this source WP:RS anyway? It's from 1947, the Raj, and the autjor was well-known for his nationalistic inclinations. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, boy, that is not easy for me to tell. But the individual word meanings are roughly:

• vedana: knowing, knowledge or veda
• sadhanena: practising, working, doing
• vedena: from knowing, from veda
• vedyam: that which is known
• aviditva: unknown, ununderstood, unrealised
• kim: little
• sadhayati: they achieve
• iti: in this manner, thus (indeed)

The saying is using the single root ved/vid in multiple ways. The overall meaning does seem to be what he says. From doing vedana-sadhana, without understanding what is to be understood from the veda, Kim sadhayati - little is achieved.

I would regard Mookerji as certainly reliable for traditional topics. I haven't read much of his work, but I have read B. N. Mukherjee, who cites him a lot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, that's closer to my opponents views thatn I'd hoped for, but I've made some adaptions in my responses accodingly. Thanks!

Welcome. Notice the sisterly correspondence between "kim" and "little" (kleine). I don't think very many languages uses "little" in this way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes from Himalayan Gazetteer and letters presented by Manandhar and Koirala regarding Kalapani

Hi Kautilya3, I am trying to move forward on something that has been discussed on the talk page of Kalapani and mentioned in the article itself. As per the Himalayan Gazetteer by Edwin T Atkinson, there is a section about Byans boundary with the villages of Tinkar and Chaangru being transferred to Nepal, but Nabhi and Kunti remaining in British territory. There are 7 letters mentioned as correspondence in the footnotes regarding this matter.

In 1817, the Nepal Darbar,[2] in accordance with the terms of the letter of the treaty, claimed the villages of Tinkar and Changru lying to the east of the Kali in parganah Byans, and, after inquiry had shown that the demand was covered by the terms of the treaty, possession was given to Bam Shah, who was then Governor of Doti.

But not satisfied with this advantage, the Nepalese claimed the villages of Kunti and Nabhi as also lying to the east of the Kali, averring that the Kunti Yankti or western branch of the head-waters should be considered the main stream as carrying the larger volume of water. Captain Webb and others showed that the lesser stream flowing from the sacred fountain of Kalapani had always been recognised as the main branch of the Kali and had in fact given its name to the river during its course through the hills. The Government therefore decided to retain both Nabhi and Kunti, which have ever since remained attached to British Byans.

Notes:

[2] To Commissioner, dated 4th Feb., '17.       From Government, dated 5th Sep, '17.

 "              "              "   5th March, '17.       To Resident, Népal,         20th      ditto.

From Captain Webb,     "   11th Aug., '17.        From     "           "             10th Oct., '17.

To Government                  20th    ditto.

I am trying to find the above mentioned 7 letters. It's proving to be a difficult task. The content of these letters should clarify what was discussed between the British and Nepalese regarding the Byans villages.

On the other hand, there are 2 other letters presented by Manandhar and Koirala in their book on pages 20 and 21. The letters are dated 4th Feb 1817 and 22nd March 1817. These letters do not mention any names of the villages to be transferred from Kumaon to Nepal. They only mention land to the east of Kali. Manandhar, Mangal Siddhi; Koirala, Hriday Lal (June 2001), "Nepal-India Boundary Issue: River Kali as International Boundary", Tribhuvan University Journal, 23 (1). -- Ashinpt (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. The letter from the Governor General's office only asked for the "areas to the east of Kali" to be transferred to Nepal. Traill decided that Changru and Tinkar were the only such villages. This is in a letter from Traill dated 8 March, a handwritten copy of which is presented in the following paper:

• Dhungel, Dwarika; Bhusal, Jagat; Khanal, Narendra (2020), "North-Western Boundary of Nepal", Journal of International Affairs, 3: 1–41, doi:10.3126/joia.v3i1.29077

Honestly, I hadn't noticed the list of letters in the footnote [2] of Atkinson. So, thanks for pointing them out! It appears that the second round of exchanges happened in August-September 1817, when the Kuthi Valley would have been discussed and its fate decided. The Nepalese scholars do not mention these letters. Either they don't know about them or they don't want to reveal what is in them. I would be most interested to see what Webb had written, because it has been made out that his map labelled the Kuthi Yankti as "Kalee". But Atkinson says that he also argued that the Kalapani river was Kalee.

These letters would be in the Government of India Archive, either in Calcutta or Delhi. If you live in India, you can probably file a Freedom of Information request for copies of those letters. Or, write to some newspaper (The Quint is good at these things), which can file an FOI request. I suspect that the babus in Delhi have no clue what to do about any of this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read from Dhungel, Bhusal and Khanal. Regarding the Maps 12 and 12a in their publication, the first map was issued on 2 Nov 2019 and the second one on 8 Nov 2019 by Survey of India. Survey of India mentioned the name of River Kali on the first map and removed it from the second map. As per an article from The Hindu, this predictably led to stronger protests. Funnily, in the first map they have actually marked the Dhauli river in the Darma valley as the "Kali". -- Ashinpt (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I know. It was raised on the article talk page. Theoretically, any of those four rivers could be called Kali. What we don't know is how long this labelling of Kali for Dhauli has been there on the Survey of India map, and how it got there. Rakesh Sood makes it appear as if it had been specially inserted for the eighth edition map. If that is the case, we have to assume that the Nepalese Communist Party has infiltrated into the Survey of India (not only the "human rights" establishment, as I mentioned above). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see the Indian diplomats finally engaging Nepal. Had they done so from the beginning, things wouldn't have come to such a ridiculous state:

But he [Buddhi Narayan Shrestha] now says that the trijunction at this end has not been determined and that notionally it would be pillar number zero on the boundary! This is the first time one has heard of the concept of a “number zero border pillar”! This is ex post facto justification and the dishonesty behind it is glaring.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just saw you mentioned the Darma River in the talk page. I can't decide whether it is sheer incompetence or something else on the part of SoI, frankly.

And about the pillar number zero, it just sounded a bit silly to me. This pillar zero stuff probably gets mentioned a lot in Nepal. Dhungel et al also give the excuse that the Nepal China boundary agreement in 1961 was based on maps from SoI, so it should not count. B N Shrestha has some weird views that I can only describe as paranoid or sensationalist. He accepts that the other Nepal-China-India tripoint is at Jongsong Peak, which the Nepalese call Jhinsang Chuli. This tripoint matches the exactly what is mentioned in the Nepal China boundary agreement, being the terminal point where the watershed between the Khar River and the Chabuk River meets the watershed between the Khar River and the Lhonak River. Somehow the eastern trijunction is perfectly described in the Nepal-China border agreement, but the western one is not. He also goes on to say that there should be a trijunction marker at the Jongsong Peak, else Nepal could lose the peak in the future. He's talking about having a junction marker on top of a mountain almost 7500m high. I mean, this guy was the Director General of the Survey Department of Nepal. Surely he knows about the geography of the particular area and how absurd his suggestions are. -- Ashinpt (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, no matter whose maps were used, the King certainly knew that Lipulekh wasn't being included while signing the boundary agreement. The King certainly knew that Lipulekh was already being used between China and India, by treaty, since 1954.

My belief is that the British made an informal deal with Jang Bahadur Rana back in 1860, with the knowledge of the-then King. Rana was pitching for the Kuthi Valley up to its southern watershed. The British would have told him, "watershed is a good idea, but we would like the eastern watershed of Kalapani. We already gave you the western Tarai. That is plenty. Why don't you let go of this? Lipulekh can be used by the Tinkar Valley Byansis anyway under the existing arrangements". He would have agreed (albeit reluctantly) and the King would have agreed, but neither of them had the courage to publicise it. So, they kept pretending that Kalapani was still Nepalese territory.

The British wouldn't have thought this needed a formal agreement because it was merely an interpretation of the treaty. All the headwaters of Kali lie within British territory and Nepal begins to the east of the headwaters. That is the wording you see in the Gazetteers. Certainly the British had enough power to impose their interpretation.

The Nepalese are unaware that the British did this. They all think independent India changed things, after 1962.

India's fault probably lies in not telling this to the Nepalese in an explicit manner, citing precedents. The precedents are all important in a case like this. You can't start interpreting a 200-year old treaty all over again. The Indian interlocuters have to know the full history. But I suspect they don't. That is why things have dragged on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any report saying that Jung Bahadur Rana wanted the southern watershed of the Kuthi valley? I thought as per the Himalayan Gazetteer by Atkinson, the correspondences of 1817 kind of decided where Kuthi valley would go? -- Ashinpt (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1856 map

From Dhungel and Pun:

Furthermore, the Map of 1856 drawn by the Office of the Surveyor General of India also indicates the Western boundary of Nepal along the Kali River (mentioned as Kalee) originating from Limpiyadhura (Limpiya range). With regard to the knowledge of the Government of Nepal about the preparation of this 1856 map, the hand written explanatory note No 3 in the map indicates that the map was seen and approved by Prime Minister Junga Bahadur Rana to be sent to the British Resident at Kathmandu.[9: Shrestha, Buddhi Narayan (2013) Sima Sangram (Border Dispute), Ratna Sagar Publishers and Distributors, Kathmandu, Nepal]

If you send me an email, I can send you a good quality copy of the map. The map actually shows the proposed boundary lines of Rana, which these hot shots didn't bother to notice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, just sent you an email. Thanks. -- Ashinpt (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. I'm trying to understand this.

I can see a dashed line along the crest of the Adi Kailash range, which is the southern watershed boundary of the Kuti Yangti joining the Kali river somewhere south of Budhi village, I guess.

I can also see a dashed line along the crest of the Panchchuli range, which is the southern watershed boundary of the Dhauli Ganga River (Darma Valley) joining the Kali river somewhere in between Shakooree / Syankuri (as per Google Earth) and Jooma / Jumma (as per Google Earth).

There's another dashed line joining the Kali just after the confluence of Kali with the Chanuleea River?? / Chameliya river coming from Nepal. This dashed line is probably starting next to Askot further north along the Gori Ganga river. We of course have Tibet's southern boundary also clearly outlined.

Is there a note somewhere on the map indicating approval of Jung Bahadur Rana and that he is looking at the southern watershed of Kuti Yangti as a possible border? -- Ashinpt (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The line in the south could be the then southern boundary of Nepal. Remember that the western Tarai was still under British control. I am guessing it is the ridge line opposite "Tarkuli" in Uttarakhand.

We don't know what was in the note other than what I quoted above. Since the map was "approved" by Rana, and the watershed lines are marked there, I am speculating that they were being proposed as possible boundaries. On the other hand, I just checked the 1850 Kumaon And British Garhwal By Strachey F25-16.jpg map, which has the patti boundaries marked. So, these lines could be the patti boundaries copied over from that map.

A good question is, why was Rana sending this to the British government. The sticker on top says that it was "published" in April 1856. "Published" where? Who published it?

Note that the label "Kalee R" has been added. It wasn't present in the 1850 map. But the rest of the map (at least the India part) is copied from the 1850 map, including all its errors (e.g., the location of Kalapani) and its spellings ("Bhvnthuree"). So this map creation and exchange was evidently part of a negotiation of some sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the line in the south would have been the southern boundary of Nepal. It should be the first crest of hills north of the plains at Bhimdatta in Nepal and opposite Tanakpur in Uttarakhand.

I just saw the 1850 map by Strachey. So the dashed lines in the 1856 map definitely look like the patti boundaries. The places where the patti boundaries follow the rivers/streams, they are not shown on the 1856 map. All other places, the boundaries are shown as dashed lines.

It's a good question as to who made the 1856 map and what J B Rana was trying to do with it? -- Ashinpt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Kalapani 1817

If you google for "Kalapani 1817", you get some fun hits. One of them, a TOI blog post by Madhup Mohita, has noticed the letters you noticed above.

These records are set out in the correspondence between Gardiner, the first British Resident in Nepal and the Nepal Durbar, dating Feb 4, 1817 to October 10, 1817.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and he got there even before me. His blog date is 31 May 2020. -- Ashinpt (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2020 China–India skirmishes

On 16 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 China–India skirmishes, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PenulisHantu, what is the problem here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles 370 and Presidential order 2019.

Hello, don't disrupt my edits. You have been Continouly doing it. I have given the reason and reference link. Your claim of Article 370 being revoked through Presidential order 2019 is dubious. You have no source to back. There in "concurrence of jammu and Kashmir Govt" is dubious as there was no elected Govt in Kashmir. So please dont revert my changes without my permission. Otherwise your disruptive behavior will be complained to admins. Thanks! Kashwritesback (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kashwritesback, you need to discuss it on the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to CONSENSUS. At the moment you are WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has edit by everyone policy. i have given my reasons and source. There is no dispute. Your source has no claim of concurrence by Govt. So it goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Kashwritesback (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Hello, Kautilya, hope you are doing well. I'm writing this message as it concerns my recently reverted edits. I beleive that my edits, for the most part, are justified, via the rules of WP:INDICSCRIPT. However, as you reverted them, I am willing to discuss each one individually to see if you have a problem with any of them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsolanky (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think adding the Hindi script to any Ladakhi places is sensible. The traditional local language is Tibetan. They key question is whether you are adding theses scripts for any encyclopaedic value, or for nationalist branding. If it is the latter, I would oppose it irrespective of whether it satisfies the WP:INDICSCRIPT policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Here for example, you have hijacked an Arabic name and started branding it as a Sanskrit name. It is far worse than I have imagined. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am doing this to promote fair use of native scripts. It doesn't make sense for any page concerning Ladakh to have Urdu transcriptions, as less than 1% of the population of Ladakh speaks Urdu, as per the 2011 census. Hindi, on the other hand, is spoken by around 9% of the population and is one of the two official languages of Ladakh, the other being English. Second of all, Ammar is definitely a Sanskrit name, no question about it. However, as it is spelled with one 'm' rather than two, I'll create another page for it to avoid confusion. Bsolanky (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

International media

With Indo-Pakistani conflicts, Deutsche Welle used to come close to telling the truth while the British/American media pretended that they didn't know what was happening. With the Sino-Indian conflict the roles are curiously reversed. Now, the British/American media are coming close to the truth while Deutsche Welle pretends that it doesn't know.

Reuters [14]:

The two sides had been discussing ways to de-escalate but at some point, an Indian government source said, China’s People’s Liberation Army had turned on a group of Indian soldiers that included an officer.

Deutsche Welle [15]:

"During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent faceoff took place yesterday night with casualties," said an official statement reporting the first deadly confrontation between the two powers for decades.

Supposedly, Deutsche Welle's write-up is based on the same Reuters story! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle also has a Chinese edition where no such qualms are apparent. At the end of the press conference, a reporter supposedly asked Zhao Lijian what exactly happened. He said, among other things,

it was shocking that on the evening of June 15th, the Indian front-line border forces openly broke the consensus reached at the military-level meeting between the two sides. Once the situation in the Gallevan Valley has slowed down, it has once again crossed the field. The control line deliberately provoked, and even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who negotiated on the spot, which led to fierce physical conflict and caused casualties. The Indian army's risky actions have seriously undermined the stability of the border area, seriously threatened the lives of Chinese personnel, seriously violated the agreements reached by the two countries on the border issues, and seriously violated the basic norms of international relations. China has made solemn representations and strong protests to India in this regard.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, the Chinese Wikipedia relabels the "Declared Chinese border point" as "据称的中方边境据点" (Google translate: "Alleged Chinese border stronghold")! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Epic, funny, SAD and revealing

These two videos from Newslaundry are sad in so many way (Newslaundry has done a fine job, the reporting of the other channels displayed is sad and confusing once you get past the humour of it) -v1 & v2 DTM (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: that fake Chinese casualty list was directly copied from the Wikipedia article List of generals of the People's Republic of China. source. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What of the Chinese government's "official" fake news about where the Line of Actual Control is? All these stupid shenanigans pale in comparison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That is rather amusing that it was copied from Wikipedia. And yes, fake news so big that it isn't counted as fake news, there was some Nazi concept for that I think. Indian anchors need to even start lying better and bigger. DTM (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a really good and revealing statement by Nyoma block development council (BDC) chairperson Urgain Chodon (BJP) - 12 DTM (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen her speak in the past. She is fiery, but too incoherent to be useful as a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Print journalists have made a video at Demchok. "Hundreds of nomads who used to graze their animals on both sides of the line of actual control are believed to have lost their grazing lands". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Greetings Kautilya. I wanted to ask an experienced editor such as yourself whether you think this source is reliable for information on slavery in India. Is it Neutral? Biased? Apologetic? Factual or what. Forgive me for imposing like this but can you look into this if you have the time. [[16]]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.181.243 (talk • contribs)

Funny that you should ask. The thread that just got archived was also asking about Radha Kumud Mukherjee. I notice that he wrote the Introduction for this book. Mukherjee was a highly respected historian before independence. But after independence, new historical scholarship took over, which regarded Mukherjee's style of history, and indeed all of colonial-era history, as old-fashioned and contestable. This book is not written by him of course, but perhaps by a former student of his. The main point he highlights in the Introduction, viz., that slavery in India was mostly domestic servitude, at least after the Maurya Empire, is also made by R. S. Sharma in his Sudras in Ancient India.

So, yes, I would regard this book as a reliable source, but it must be used with caution as possibly belonging to old-world scholarship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Pangong Tso

Your recent editing history at Pangong Tso shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
as you have already CONTINUOUSLunduly reverted the content repeatedly as well as submitted sanction requests for contributing editors without yourself writing and contributing positively to wikipedia. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.210.144.148 (talk • contribs)

Hey pal, please raise whatever issues you have at Talk:Pangong Tso. Continued harassment will get you blocked again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your page for a bit. Hope that's ok. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Erik-the-red (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Category:Invasions of India. Not sure what it means but if you could take a look? --RegentsPark (comment) 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, watch-listed it. It seems reasonable so far. It will be interesting to consider if the Nepalese invasion of Kumaon and Garhwal counts as an "invasion of India" :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also Category:Invasions by India. Not clear to me if the Maratha conquest of North West India or Bengal qualifies as an invasion by or of India (India vs. India?). Not clear as well which India is being talked about (e.g., the India of Annexation of Hyderabad and the "India" of the Mughal Safavid wars are different entities). Sigh. Partition does cause a lot of confusion!--RegentsPark (comment) 22:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, no! This makes my head hurt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India-China Border Roads, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nemo and Milam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you Kautilya3 for protecting some of the important India related articles from vandalism.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 05:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pravega. Good to make your acquaintance! Please feel free to call on me if you need help anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ARE

There is now a discussion concerning you at WP:ARE. Please make your comments there. Erik-the-red (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Interest in your work

Hi Kautilya3,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LailaAtTrustLab (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Nathu La and Cho La clashes

Would you care to explain why a revert was done? Pride of India, does not outweight facts. Quite the irony you got the "anti vandalism star" It was also you that literally pasted "Chinese myths" in to the 2020 talk section regarding the LAC to mock the Chinese. Not very respectful. A "false balance" does not exist, unless the other source was a credible source. If it literally uses Indian National Defence Agency's data, its ought to be removed altogether. Yet it was kept, every single time. This is Wikipedia. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

YuukiHirohiko, you need to start reading WP:edit summaries, where reasons for reverts are explained. My edit summary said, "Infobox changes require WP:CONSENSUS". So please go to the talk page, make a proposal, present your sources and get all the involved editors to agree.

You should also stop casting WP:Aspersions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations."

Sorry but you were REGULARLY reverting my edits and I don't see it being an aspersion. Calling out what you are doing I see is reasonable and appropriate to the current situation of bias in both articles.

You are actively defending the onesided nature of both articles, and I don't see this action improving Wikipedia one bit. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Does this diagram work?

I am trying to find a way of showing that the sex ratio (or gender ratio) in many places in J&K varies with religion. I used a cut off of 2,000 (i.e. if there are less than 2,000 people in a category, and the people are included in "others"). The total figure is the same as the headline figure that is normally counted.

Sex ratio in Srinagar District in 2011 Census (no. females per 1,000 males)
Religion (and population)			Sex Ratio
Hindu (pop 42,540)			184
Muslim (pop 1,177,342)			945
Christian (pop 2,746)			551
Sikh (pop 12,187)			747
Other (pop 2,014)			666
Total (pop 1,236,829)			900

I do not like the term sex ratio, and I do not like the way that it is represented as females per 1,000 males, but it is used by sources. To my way of thinking, the % of females in the population is more intuitive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it works well. Are these numbers are for real? The differences are quite shocking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes - and this kind of relationship is present in many (but not all) districts of J&K and Ladakh.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Indian border dispute

Dear Kautilya, since I am not around always, please take care of this edit I spent whole day creating, Talk:Sino-Indian_border_dispute#Added_new_sections. Feel free to add edit tags, leave me a message if more changes are needed, otherwise feel free to make incremental enhancements/cleanup, etc. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, I don't see how this content belongs on that page at all. Border dispute has nothing to do with military deployments etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

List of territorial entities where Hindustani is an official language

Hi K3! Have you seen this[17] new page? I deliberately give you the link before I made some fixes of the most blatant errors. If F&f weren't on vacation, I would ping him to the page, too. The whole thing is quite not WP:NPOV. –Austronesier (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we go with F&f's idea of Hindi-Urdu, such pages wouldn't exist! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good idea for many reasons, and we would keep most if not all subpages called "Hindustani XXX" renamed to "Hindi–Urdu XXX". The most challenging part would be a really good History of Hindi–Urdu that reflects the partially irreconcilable POVs instead of ignoring them. But that's another story :) –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My favourite name for the original language is "Hindavi" rather than Hindustani. Amir Khusro having coined the term (or at least popularised it), I think all speakers of Hindi-Urdu can own it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "Hindavi" has the charm of not having undergone the connotational change of both "Hindi" and "Hindustani". It wouldn't qualify for WP:COMMONNAME based on recognizabilty (even less than Hindustani), but would be a perfect in-text designation to be used in a historal discussion of the "unbifurcated" language that existed until (depending on POV) until the mid-18th or mid-19th century. –Austronesier (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ministry of Home Affairs

Afghanistan is the boarder of India according to the Ministry of Home Affairs. please look at this link https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/BMIntro-1011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravaneee (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sravaneee, Gunji is supposedly a village of Nepal according to their constitution. Do you think Wikipedia should allow that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help me to know reliablity of this source

Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (2002). Education and the disprivileged: nineteenth and twentieth century India . This book has been cited in a page but I doubt its reliability but I want to confirm with you before proceeding with any changes. Kindly inform me about its reliability. EruTheLord (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi EruTheLord, it is an edited collection published by Orient Longmann (Orient Blackswan), an academic publisher. So, it is de facto, reliable. Of course, the various contributors may be of varying quality. That has to be discussed in context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

one more request a vandal named vanni kumar repeatedly vandalising the Damarla chenappa nayaka page. I cant handle him. Kindly protect the protect the page or block him after reverting. EruTheLord (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

EruTheLord, you need to engage with him and discuss the issues. There is no other way. It is a content dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I just say your edit in Kamma page. You were editing a source . The book is considered not reliable by Sitush. It is better to remove that citation . It shows up the same page as it did previously. EruTheLord (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If Sitush is concerned about it, he will raise it at the article talk page. If you are concerned about it, you are welcome to raise it at the talk page. That is how Wikipedia discussions happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that isn't quite what I said on my talk page. When asked, I said we didn't really need it for a particular point because there was another reliable source there. I also said that I couldn't see the source in question but the title didn't sound too relevant. I see from this edit that it is a chapter by Christophe Jaffrelot and, of course, he is definitely ok to cite. We use him quite a lot for caste stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

Hello, you put ARBIPA sanctions alert in my talk page without mentioning any reason. Could you explain? I also noticed that you are putting deletion tag in Gunji Village, Nepal repetitively in spite I mentioned that Gunji, Uttarakhand is disputed territory and have requested both pages for protection. nirmal (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nirmaljoshi, ARBIPA sanctions apply to all India/Pakistan/Afghanistan-related pages, and anybody that edits those pages is likely to get an alert of the applicable sanctions.

The alert states that you are accountable for following all the applicable policies. If you don't do so, you can face sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Graphs

Thanks for your email. Yes, you are right. This is to do with.[18][19][20] He/she has a new ID now.[21]

I have done some language pie charts at your suggestion.

1. Ambedkar Nagar district
2. Amethi district
3. Barabanki district
4. Faizabad district
5. Faizabad division
6. Hardoi district
7. Kargil district
8. Ladakh
9. Lakhimpur Kheri district
10. Leh district
11. Lucknow district
12. Lucknow division
13. Raebareli district
14. Sitapur district
15. Sultanpur district
16. Unnao district

For colours I have kept:

• Hindi as always yellow,
• languages with a mother tongue code that starts 006 as pink and orange colours (e.g. Ambedkar Nagar district)
• Urdu as always red,
• Other as always black

I used the trimming rule that anything with less than 0.5% was included in others - i.e. the table gives a bit more detail - the reason was that below 0.5% it does not show in a pie chart.

By having a planned colour scheme it shows how very different somewhere like Faizabad district is from Kargil district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot for all your efforts! It is very useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Junagadh

So, a "new map" was released by the government of Pakistan which people believe has newly shown areas of Junagadh and Junagadh district and have added this claim (as if its new) to the articles. This is misleading since official maps of Pakistan have always shown these claims and from what I can tell there is absolutely nothing new in the map except a few words and demarcating the LOC up to Siachen which Pakistan has long claimed as well (official map from 2018, "new map"). So what should be done here, should the edits be removed or added with a clarification to the body (should obviously not be in the lead). Gotitbro (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro I left a comment on the talk page with regards to your revert/edit. I will support the second suggestion, namely that the dispute be summarised in the body but not necessarily in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, we should stop chasing the newspapers which, with their limited knowledge, start sensationalising routine matters. "New map" has become a catch-phrase for substandard media to grab the readers' attention. I have reverted this once. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kautilya3

User:Kautilya3, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kautilya3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Kautilya3 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Surely proposing Kautilya3's user page for deletion is harassment. The reason given is spurious. The editor interaction utility gives no clue as to why it is happening.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've speedy closed the MfD and warned the nominator. Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

August 2020

Knock it off, calling the in-text attributed Chinese name as "POV-pushing". Civility and assuming good faith are principles that should always be upheld. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to assume good faith when you stop pretending that there is one Demchok despite all the evidence to the contrary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You should assume good faith especially when you disagree with someone in a content dispute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As advised by you I have edited article Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, look forward to more suggestions. Satya Jaimala (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Issues

User:Kautilya3 I found a thread-article how much true is this ? that wikipedia has Top Editors from India as Paid and hired by PR agencies for a reason ? Because this could have a bad impression about wikipedia as 700 Million Visits are from India and wikipedia smells something fishy , i am genuinely a free editor just here to contribute but i somewhat agree with his statements on Wikipedia, since u are one of the top editors from India i would like to know how true is this ? Branstarx3 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) Branstarx3, IMHO you can disregard this completely. See Wikipedia's policy on WP:PAID and WP:COI editing, which is pretty strict. There will be people who game the system, but it gets pretty clear from their editing style, which always adds a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone to articles. Don't go believing everything that you see on Twitter. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification Branstarx3 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Branstarx3, it is my understanding that the paid editors attempt to make money by trying to promote unknown individuals or companies, trying to make them look notable. They generally don't stray into high-traffic pages because they would soon get detected. The twitter guys don't know much about how Wikipedia works, and it would be best to ignore them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay , agree i saw many claiming that Indians are not allowed to edit/write on wikipedia etc etc that " if indians would have been allowed there would not have been anti-india articles " said Vivek Agnihotri on twitter, so i asked thanks for clarification. I am new here so i would need your help to adapt with PHP form. Branstarx3 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) Branstarx3, what help do you need with PHP? You don't need to be a programmer to contribute to Wikipedia. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I need everything about Wikipedia Commons (adding images , what policies to follow , from where to collect images etc) in simple way that i can understand (like if it was in pdf format and u could mail me that pdf) as what images i add shows copyright violations and later on gets deleted, while i will slowly learn by own about how to use PHP, till then i may commit mistakes so forgive me for any such mistakes Branstarx3 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Branstarx3, you don't need to know PHP for all this. Let's take this discussion to your Talk page, I've already posted the relevant sections there. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do "Indians" think the Bollywood celebrities authorities on anything? They make up fictitious stories and dramatise them. Completely the opposite of what we do on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Ram Mandir

@Kautilya3: I have edited article to update construction of Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, FYI, Kind Regards. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya Jaimala (talk • contribs)

That is fine Satya Jaimala. It was a good edit.

Nice user name you have. Reminds me of Satyakama Jabala.

Please remember to sign your posts by appending ~~~~ at the end. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Manipulation of facts

respected ma'am, I just want to bring in your notice that the facts you mentioned in Delhi riots article on Wikipedia are biased and manipulative. The riot situation was created because of hindu and Muslim community people. You should have validated your facts and get them checked before misguiding society for your biased agenda. There were many cases of stone pelting in my locality too and that was performed by Muslim mobs on police and because of which many of my friends unaware of the situation went to watch a movie and when came out got hurt in that pelting. And the situation was created in just 3 hrs. It was pre-planned thats why large mob gathered in such a small period. The mentioned case is of gorakhpur. Same happened at many more places. Pls get your facts check before creating disharmony and riot like misguiding situation. Pls look into the matter

Yours sincerely Satyavadinagrik Satyavadinagrik (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Satyavadinagrik, The Delhi riots page has been written just the same way all other pages, by following Wikipedia policies. I have posted a welcome message on your talk which explains the policies.

All the issues concerning the Delhi riots have been intensely debated for months and there are over a dozen archived discussion pages. Please go to talk Talk:2020 Delhi riots and search in the archive box for previous discussions.

The talk page is semi-protected for a brief period. You can either wait for the protection to lift, or edit other topics in the interim to gain an understanding of how Wikipedia works. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)