User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Indian Council of Historical Research

added a link pointing to University Grants Commission

Kar seva

added a link pointing to Golden Temple

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Polytheism

Can i add the polytheistic word in Hinduism by giving relevant source?? Ankush 89 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: You can't do so in my opinion. The lead is a summary of the article. The article section on "Concept of God" describes the complex view of God in Hinduism. It can't be reduced to a single word description. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Why then Judaism, Christianity and Islam collectively called Abrahamic even though the theism concept in each of them is very different? Ankush 89 (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about them. But I am sure that it is not right to call Hinduism either "polytheistic" or "monotheistic". Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Can my polytheistic word be not used anywhere in the article if not in the lead or my contribution is useless according to u and u r completely right? Ankush 89 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not question of right or wrong. I reverted your edits as per Wikipedia policies, which you should make yourself aware of. You should also read the article first, make sure you undertand it, and follow up on some of the scholarly sources cited, before starting to think you need to make corrections. This is a massive article written by a lot of knowledgeable people. Please show regard to them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: But in one of the section of Hinduism wiki article, it has been described on the scale of theism, then why can't my polytheistic word be included? Almost all Hindus worship Lord Ganesha in the beginning of any hindu ritual and along with that they also worship Ishtadevata, Kuladevata, Also, is it not compulsory that a reliable source according to WP:RS should be not from a source completely dedicated to that subject or article itself. Ankush 89 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Listen friend. Hinduism is a vast ocean and you only know the surface. Why don't you learn enough about Hinduism first? You can get one of the books mentioned in the Further Reading section. We can talk afterwards. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No there is no rule in WP:RS that says the source should not be dedicated to the subject. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: I actually agree that Hinduism is "polytheistic" in the sense that it allows multiple gods, which contributes to its tolerant and liberal nature. However, Hinduism also says all gods are manifestations of the One True God (Brahman). So, it is not correct to label it simply as a "polytheistic" religion. Bhagwad Gita says "in whatever form you worship me, that worship will reach me." So, these kind of labels are irrelevant to Hinduism. All the best. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply buddy, you please guide me for my future edits :) Ankush 89 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will be glad to. Wikipedia has lots of policies. To be a successful editor, you need to read and follow them. You can't do it all at once. But, whenever issues arise, the experienced editors will point you to the relevant policies. Please be sure to follow through. Try to be critical of the sources. Who wrote this? What do we know about them? Where was it published? What kind of review does it go through to get published? Et cetra. All these issues play a role in deciding what is a reliable source. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

Yeah, i strongly believe in Lord Shiva, the Nataraja idol picture in my infobox is a good one, I deeply respect his fierce manifestations of Bhairava which gives us the strength to tackle obstacles Ankush 89 (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen

added a link pointing to Aurangabad

Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)

added a link pointing to Punjab University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Piece

Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?[1]

NOTE: Scroll is a Left of the Centre / Marxist site.Ghatus (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is worse than the Hindutva history :-( Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Favorite" editor

Took me a few minutes to figure out whom you meant, especially considering this. :) But we do seem well-covered in terms of redirects to IVC. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have been reading books by Ashis Nandy and Vinay Lal. Both of them say that this "history" stuff doesn't work for Indians. They are into myth. That is how they have been from the beginning of time. So why change now? Meera Nanda points out that an amazing 93% of the Indians think that their culture is superior to others. Put the two together, and you have got vanity@myth.com. We just have to put up with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't doubt that. But Indians, unfortunately, are far from exceptional in either the myth-making, the anti-intellectualism, or the sense of superiority. And that is the sad/scary part, since it suggests that this is unlikely to change simply through increased literacy or economic prosperity. Yes, we are all doomed. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Favorite editor"? It's like searching for eastern eggs. Regarding "into myth": nice observation. By the way: when queen Maxima said that "the Dutchman does not exist", she was strongly criticised. Stupid; it was a very good observation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither Nandy nor Vinay Lal shoot down the mythophilia of the Indian psyche. Rather they point out that it is rooted in Indian tradition and `modernity' has in no way improved upon it. Quite the contrary. They also accuse the Indian historians of ignoring the limitations of their own trade and almost hint that they are engaged in their own version of myth-making. (See my recent article on Suraj Bhan for an example.)

The Indians "lost" the Sindhu and Saraswati has dried up. So there is a sense of loss. Myth-making is a way to counter that.

Incidentally, the Sarasvati is an important river historically, but the page on it is quite off-putting with all the Vedic stuff and Witzel's counter-points. Should we spin off a separate page for the Vedic Sarasvati river? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Sarswati & myth-making

Dear Kautilya3 , I thank you for your acknowledgement of my point on mentioning the Sarasvati river.

I want to add some more to this discussion. Please take a few minutes to have a look at this. What is myth-making? If some false idea is believed to be true.

I want to ask you the most fundamental question that was never asked about the whole concept of Ancient India.

If Vedas were composed by Aryans who were assumed to have entered the Indian sub-continent after Indus Valley Civilization(IVC) collapsed due to the dried-up of Sarasvati river, Why would the so called Aryans mention Sarasvati as the most important river in Vedas, why would they considered the Sarasvati river as their mother and goddess of education? In fact, people of IVC should consider Sarasvati as their mother because their civilization had flourished mainly because of Sarasvati river. What does the so called Aryans had to do with a river that has already dried up before their arrival, why would any one call a dried up river their mother,because of which they were no way benefited and which even seized to exist before their very assumed arrival into the sub-continent. IVC people are the one who were enormously benefited by the Sarasvati river, not the so called Aryans. In fact how did the so called Aryans came to know about a river that was already dried-up long before they migrated to the sub-continent.(It took many years even to the present scientific and historical community to accept that there is ever a river called Sarasvati existed. Until the satellite imagining was done, Sarasvati river was taught to be a myth.)

Now, personification of Sarasvati river into a mother goddess(which is called as myth-making). You are absolutely right about myth-making. But the myth-making has never happened to counter the loss of Sarasvati River, but to remember it as the most fundamental root of the civilization, and the most significant achievements of the civilization because of the existence of the river. The beauty of this myth is that none of it is actually false.

If any one lost their money or property they don't keep a personificaton of that property to remember it all the way in their future. If any losts their parents, definitely they will keep a photograph of their parents so as to remember in their future and to show to their children and grand-children. This happens only because of a basic understanding that the family was born and continuing to exist only because of their initial parents. The future generation should always remember their family roots.

Sarasvati river is personified into mother of education only because the most important wealth of the whole IVC(the knowledge that they gained in their all generations) had been possible only because of the existence of that mighty river. If there is no river there will be no IVC at all. Sarasvati river has taken care of all the needs of IVC people(which in a family is taken care by the mother), so they are able to spend their time in the goals they wanted to achieve. So, making the future generations of the civilization to remember their civilizational roots is as important as a person to remember his\her family roots. That too remembering the root of all the knowledge that they have gained is much more important. Because from generation to generation knowledge is the only wealth that passes. Even today, if you go to most of the Educational Institutions or homes in India and see their prayer rooms, you will definitely find a picture or an idol of Sarasvati as mother goddess and goddess of education, with a river flowing in the back ground.

This is the reason why even after the Sarasvati river dried up and the IVC people moved from Sarasvati river basin to the Ganges river basin, they still remembered the Sarasvati river in the form of person, this is only because something very significant wealth generation in terms of knowledge had happened due to the existence of Sarasvati river which led the Sarasvati river to gain the title as mother goddess and goddess of education. Now, why would the so called Aryan people who were assumed to have arrived long after the dried-up of Sarasvati river and who had not benefited a single bit from Sarasvati river would give her the name of Mother Goddess and goddess of education in Vedas?

If you go this deeper, won't you get the doubt regarding the most fundamental question that was never asked about the whole concept of Ancient India? WHAT IS THE REAL MYTH REGARDING THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF ANCIENT INDIA? My question is whether the present Indian society, who continue to worship Sarasvati river as the mother goddess and the Goddess of Education is a continuation of INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION or the so called ARYAN CIVILIZATION? So answer this question to your self.

Once again I thank you for your acknowledgement regarding the addition of river and your patience to read all the above info. I believe, now you might have understood the reason behind my repeated edits regarding the mentioning of the Sarasvati river. IT IS THE ROOT OF THIS MORE THAN 10,000 YEAR OLD TREE.

By Your "Favourite" Editor -- BodduLokesh (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the answer may be quite simple: only if you believe that "the Aryans" were a closed culture, which were not influenced by their surroundings, then it would be strange that they mention the Sarasvati river. But if they were a heterogeneous group, or groups, who were open to "external" influences, and who accepted new members wihtin their social organisation, then the explanation is quite simple: older myths were incorporated, together with the people who held those myths; just like "the Aryans" had incorporated myths from Bactria. Only if you believe in a "pure" "essence" or origin, then it would be strange to see a mixing of traditions. But it's quite clear that there's been a continuous mix of cultures in india for thousands of years. Not only the IVC and "the Aryans," but also other cultures and groups. That's bad news for people who believe in pure origins, but common sense for people who take a look around and see that people and cultures continuously mix, and influence each other. The fact that we're communicating here in English is a very good example... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Thanks for writing on my talk page. But that is rather too long a message. In future, please try to make it shorter. The mention of "myths" came up because I was reading books that talked about how myth and history get combined in Indian discourse. Saraswati river is highly "mythical" in that my first introduction to it was as a mythical river that came and joined the Ganga and Yamuna in Prayag. This is what was written in all the Puranas, trust me. There was never any mention of a Saraswati river that went to the Arabian Sea. I first found about the real Saraswati river from a David Frawley book and then I discovered it had something to do with the IVC. After looking at everything I could lay my hands on about the IVC (in the 80s), I still had a big question mark because the different pieces of evidence didn't fit. Things are a bit better now because scientists believe that Saraswati could have started drying up around 2000 BC, and Rigveda could have been composed some time before 1500BC. My current thinking on the subject is expressed in my post Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Why the debate.

• As for Rigveda, I don't think it is mentioned anywhere that Saraswati is the "most important" river. We believe that it was probably the most important river because it had the maximum number of hymns associated with it.
• There are actually very easy explanations for the prominence of the Saraswati in the Rig Veda and in fact for the entire development of the Rig Veda. We know for sure that, when Saraswati started drying up, people moved upstream (from Rajasthan to Haryana and Punjab). The Indus economy was totally destroyed. Rains were so low that people gave up agriculture and took to pastoralism. A religion that says that one must appease gods in order for rains to fall and rivers to flow becomes attractive in this situation. And the river that you pray to the most is precisely the river that is drying up.
• The Saraswati in the Rigveda has nothing to do with Saraswati, the goddess of education. In fact, none of the gods that we are familiar with are in the Rigveda, except for Brahma, who was an abstract creator god, not a four-headed one. Vishnu had a minor mention. So did Rudra, who was later identified with Siva. There were no Lakshmi or Parvati or Shakti, in fact no goddesses at all. So, it was a patriarchal community. How did it change into the present day Hinduism? You can read the Hinduism article for some answers.
• I never heard of Saraswati being thought of as a mother goddess. You might be confusing her with Shakti.

And as for Aryans, the current target of myth-making in India, I said in my other post that it is a meaningless term and we should stop using it. It looks like you agree. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Joshua Jonathan:

• You are absolutely true in mentioning that none of the gods that we are familiar with are in the Rigveda, essentially there is no reqiurement at that time. Taking the case of Saraswati in Rigveda. When the Rigveda was composed there is no requirement in itself to personify Saraswati River in to a human form, because the river was still flowing at its fullest capacity. The personification was done after the Rigveda was composed and the Saraswati has dried-up, and to make the future generation of the civilization aware of their civilization's root.
• Next one, About hearing the personifed Saraswati as the "Mother Goddess of Education", We believe Saraswati is the most important river in the Rigveda not because of most number of mentions but because of most important mentions. In Rigveda while the Saraswati is still flowing and has no requirement for human personification of Saraswati had arised , the Rigveda had not simply mentioned Saraswati as the most important river it mentioned, ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati, "best mother, best river, and best goddess" in RV 2.41.16(The whole mention is for a river not for a human goddess) . I don't think Rigveda or in that sense any records of Vedas ever praise any thing in a lot without appropriate necessity because each any every word is most important because it should be carried down to the future orally for centuries until the perfect script to write them down was developed. A simple mention with the most important word is enough.

If there is a need to praise one's lover(girl friend), a whole book will not sufficient for our modern authors. But for praising one's mother, even today or some 5000 years after or some 5000 years ago, mentioning a single word MOTHER is enough, that itself will explain everything.(In any picture of Saraswati in human form you find her catching a small manuscript(a very samll) in her hand, which is traditionally referred to as The Vedas which is the most important education that is gained by the Vedic people. This is simply to signify that the achievement of Vedas(which is considered by the vedic people as the most important knowledge by those vedic people is only possible by the existence of Saraswati river.

So personification of Saraswati river was done after the composition of Vedas(which happened only because of the existence of the river) after it has dried-up.

Cheers --BodduLokesh (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh, you're aware that you're "back-reading" your/our own interpretations into the intentions of the composers of the Rig Veda?: "We believe" (emphasis mine). If you want to understand what the Rig Veda meant to those people, you'll have to try to understand what it meant to them, how they used those hymns, how they were composed, etc.

@Kautilya3: yes, turning to pastoralism seems like a likely scenario - which also explains why the "Aryan"/Vedic culture had such an influence. Compare it to the Jews: the Torah reflects the lifestyle of nomadic people. Your mention of the Puranas is also interesting; the Rig Veda is not the only text which shaped the mythological properties of the Sarasvati.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You have rightly mentioned that there's been a continuous mix of cultures in India for thousands of years.

But the question is not that simple. Because when one moves to a new society or a culture it is quite natural that they adopt the cultures and traditions of the existing people, because it is essentially necessary to lead a peaceful life. They can adopt the existing people's scared things as equally important and scared to them.

Here, the case is the Sarasvati river has already been dried up and the people of IVC moved to Ganges and now Ganges is their mother and the Sarasvati is their grand-mother. Because Ganges is the life supporter now for the IVC people. Why would someone adopt someone else'e grand mother as their mother? Adopting someone else's mother as their mother is appropriate, if they want to fulfill the purpose of leading a peaceful life in coexistence with the native people, but adopting some one else's grand mother as their mother and making her their mother of knowledge that they gained in all their previous generations is simply not necessary neither relevant even in their point of view.

Now, if the so called Aryans came after the Sarasvati dried-up and the period when Ganges is bearing the status of mother(this mention can be found in later texts such as mostly Puranas and Itihasas). Now if one enters a new culture, it's relevent if they adopt the existing mother river(Ganges) as their mother river too. But why would they adopt the grand-mother(Srasvati river which led IVC to flourish and whose dried up led the people to move to Ganges basin) of the existing people as their mother of knowledge, which is completely not necessary neither relevant even in their point of view.

Its ok if they adopted Ganges as their mother river, because now Ganges is the life supporter for both the existing people and the newly arrived group. But why an already dried up river has been given the status of mother of knowledge in the Vedas that they were assumed to have composed, you have to note the word "Mother", its not a simple thing.

This is one of the most fundamental doubts that should arise for any one as they go deeper into this aspect.

Every one adopted English because it is essentially necessary for everyone irrespective of their origin, to lead a peaceful and constructive life coexisting with each other. English is the one that is globally adopted not the ancient Latin or Greek which once existed. In this case, Ganges is English and Saraswati is Latin or Greek.

And for your mention of "We believe"; I mentioned we believe, in response to the one that was earlier mentioned by Kautilya3. By mentioning "We believe", I,m not mentioning my interpretations of Rigveda but just a response to Kautilya3.(have a look at kautilya3's response)

Cheers.. BodduLokesh (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BodduLokesh: What you are doing here is precisely the kind of myth-making that the authors of my books are talking about. Unfortunately, even though Indians seem to be into myth-making, I am afraid I am not. I read pretty much all the Puranas when I was still in high school, in order to find out the "truth". At the end of it, I decided none of them is true. Advaita is what appealed to me. So, sorry, you can't recruit me into your project.
In any case, Wikipedia is not the place to document myths, either our own or other people's. We can only document what the scholars and scientists agree on.
@Joshua Jonathan: People turning to pastoralism because of the climate becoming arid is Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar's theory. He does cite some evidence for it, but I don't find it definitive. His big theory is that the late Harappans were the "Aryans." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: read Indo-Aryan migration theory: "the Aryans" did not unitarily adapt to the locals; some locals may have adapted to pastoralism and the Aryan lifestyle, meanwhile also influencing this Aryan culture. Compare it to western Christianity: pledging allegiance to the Bible, meanwhile celebrating Christmas at the winter solicistice, and believing that you go to Heaven after you die. Europe is still full of pre-Christian beliefs, narratives and rituals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Definitely, what you mentioning is absolutely right. As a global citizen, and a modern learner, the most fundamental objective of a learner should be:

"To be able to come to radical conclusions based on observed facts by using reasoning and logic as the tools, not prejudice and stereotypes".

Your point is 100% true.

I know that the things mentioned in Puranas are myths(the word Purana itself says it), you might be knowing Puranas comes under "Smruti Literature", which takes excerpts of "Sruthi Literature" and explains them to people by imbibing them mythical stories.

Any way, I'm not worried about any of the aspects of Ancient History, because with the advancements of Scientific Techniques in archaeology, and the ever increasing archaeological evidence will ultimately take care of it.

But the only thing that I mention finally is as Abecedare mentioned, that the whole 30,000 years history of Ancient India is summarized in a paragraph and the whole IVC, the root of Indian Civilization in two lines, then each and every word counts. Each and every word should do its best in representing the truth of the Ancient History. So, it would be more genuinely informative, if in the Article India, the Ancient India Section is revised by experienced editors like all you guys to make justice to each and every word mentioned. At the least, there is a genuine need to revise at least the second paragraph of the Ancient India Section. So, I request all of you to think of it.

If you want to have more reliable information about Sarasvati River, you can refer the book, " The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati ", authored by Michel Danino . I assure you will get the most reliable and authentic information available regrading Sarasvati River from the book.

Finally, I thank all the ones' praticipated in this discussion in making it lead to a constructive outcome.

Best Regards --BodduLokesh (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Any way, the most interesting point I acknowledge to mention is,

" You all are putting enormous efforts for wikipedia, may all your efforts continue the spread of genuine information to everyone around the globe. "

Best Regards --BodduLokesh (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Indeed, thanks for the dialogue. If we changed "Indus Valley Civilization" to "Indus-Saraswati Civilization," that would probably satisfy you. Unfortunately, we can't. "Indus Valley Civilization" is the official scientific name. It might still change in future but, for now, that is how things stand. I could try rewording the sentence a bit to make the river valleys come out more prominently. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As for Michel Danino's book, the citation list [2] has only one published citation, one unpublished one, and a load of Hindu nationalist web site mentions. Unless there is a scholarly review in a journal, we can't be sure if it is worth the trouble. (The problem is that this is a non-scientist writing about a scientific topic. So, we need the scientists to certify it. Otherwise it is fringe.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have no any problem with the name of "Indus Valley Civilization" , let the scholarly community take their own time in deciding it. But the one I requested to look over is that in the Ancient India section , in the second paragraph, at the least there is a genuine need to mention the status of archaeological evidence regarding "Indo-Aryan Migration" in a few words. I will keep this point in the Article's talkpage Talk:India. So, I requested you to think of it.

As for Michel Danino's book, I mentioned it with an intention to make you get through the genuine info(as a personal guide) regarding Sarasvati river, not to site the book as a reference anywhere. My point is that, the book was written with a genuine motive of placing the facts of Sarasvati river to the layman. Anyone who knows about this author can understand his credibility.

Best regards -- BodduLokesh (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Well, the Sarasvati river and Indo-Aryan migration are quite different topics, aren't they? As for the latter, many Indians believe that archaeology is the main discipline that has a say on it. But that is not true. Since "Indo-Aryan" means Sanskrit speakers, it is first of all a question of linguistics. Somewhat shamefully, Indians are no good at linguistics ("shamefully" because linguistics originates with Pāṇini). So, their conclusions are all wrong. Anyway, this issue has been debated to death, and we had an RfC last year, which settled the issue once for all as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Unless there is some new evidence that overturns the current state of knowledge, nobody at Wikipedia wants to revisit that issue. But I will check to see if the current wording is right. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Joshua Jonathan: No worries, as the time passes, with the advancing scientific techniques, technologies and new archaeological evidences, the truth will unveil itself. I can happily concentrate on the outcomes rather than the origins of the teachings of our ancient humans', as science and technology will take care of the latter. In fact, our ancient generations wanted the same to happen, that is the reason why they had paid only succinct attention to mention about their origins or history but concentrated more on the outcomes of the learnings of their lifetimes. In this very limited life span(a 100 revolutions of the earth of which almost 1\4th have been completed for me), the most important resource(i.e., time), if spent by keeping in consideration the outcomes of our previous generations as the starting point of our seeking, then the outcome of our lifetime learning would lead to the optimum benefit for the individual in particular and the humankind in general.

If our earth makes a 100 revolutions around the sun, a whole generation is evolved and dissolved, which is a very small thing for the earth but a life time for the generation. The only thing that remains to the next generation is the " wealth of knowledge" that is generated until their previous generation.

That is the reason why modern humans can say, "we stand taller and look farther" than our previous generations.

Any way, thank you once again for considering my point. --BodduLokesh (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blessed are the curious
who keep an open mind
and learn things new
that upset the old,
for there are always
things we never knew
or thought we knew
but just were we bold?

Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender categorization

I'm not sure about that, honestly - see the categories under Category:Women writers, for instance. I don't see any particular difference between them and the male writers...gender is as substantial a qualifier for the one as it is for the other. And that seems to have been the operating principle thus far, at least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:OSE, it is not proper to justify violating policies at one place because you think they are violated at another place. Moreover, the subject of "Women writers" has gone through several rounds of CfD's and you will need to look into those to find out why it is justified. If any categorisations of women writers appear to you to be unsourced, plese feel free to challenge them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Rajasthan

I have a feeling we have timelines mixed up. Al Mansurah was established by the time of Mohammad bin Qasim, I think. There were two unsuccessful expeditions before bin Qasim. Bin Qasim sent his troops to Saurashtra, and he retreated after a treaty with them. Blankinship mentions a very heavy concern of the Umayyads with Gandhara and taxing their trade to the West as a key policy objective. AshLin (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know all that much about what happened in Sindh. You can check the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent page, which has info on this, mostly taken from Wink.

I am going to be offline for a couple of days. If it becomes necessary, please feel free to take off the "under construction" sign. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Kautilya,

I noticed that you said you were going to be offline for a few days. If at all possible, could you contact me through <elided>? You seem a very knowledgeable editor on many relevant subjects. Cheers, Tookminds (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tookminds:, thanks for your aprpeciation. If you would like to contact me through email, you can use the "Email User" menu item under the "User" menu. It is also not a good idea to put your email address on the web, because they get picked up by web-crawlers for business purposes. (I am not entirely offline, but my wiki-editing is going to be limited for a few days.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Cookie for you, from Cookie Monster! CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yummie!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

@Kautilya3:Fine, thanks for remembering that. I've seen a similar article of such type in wiki which was merged and hence, I have porposed. If you can comment here, it would be helpful for merge or de-merge. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: The policies of Wikipedia for caste, religion, sexual orientation etc. are quite strict. We need reliable source where they identify themselves as belonging to particular affiliations. That is a tall order. So, it is not worth bothering.

Also, you don't need to "ping" me when you write on my talk page, as I get automatically notified. In general, please use pings only sparingly because they can become disruptive. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok fine, thank you. I thought you were busy working in other articles, so used ping. Anyhow thanks for the info. Cheers.--Vin09 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aristotle and Kant? Here we come!

It is funny to write on my own talk page, but where else do I tell a joke? So, here it goes:

“ It’s fair to say that Wikipedia has spent far more time considering the philosophical ramifications of categorization than Aristotle and Kant ever did. ”

If you had fun reading that, then come over here. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks

for your thanks. Oddly, 2 hrs ago I was listening to a talk on Kautilya on BBC Radio 4. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I didn't know about it. Is this the Sunil Khilnani talk? Found it on iPlayer. Looks like a nice series. A flipside though. Kautilya didn't figure out balance of power, a serious deficiency of Indians in the long run.- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the one - very good series. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, for talk page stalkers, here is the link to the talk on Panini. Hoping for Indians to regain their mastery of linguistics! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

I just opened the Battle of Rajasthan page today in the midst of my studies. I am highly impressed/delighted by the job done there. Very good work. BTW, what does it mean - "Defeat of large expedition against Avanti"? Who is the victor? Please clear there in the table. The table is rightly cut short instead of prolonging it to 1205 AD. Again, I think the term "Indians" should be used instead of "Hindus" as India, to the Arabs, was Al-Hind (Hind being India and Hindus being Indians). :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! I am still working on it though, mainly trying to sort out the multiple expeditions of the Arabs. Unfortunately, Blankinship doesn't cover the 9th century, which is when the "decisive battle" is supposed to have taken place. I will still need to research that.

I have only worked on the section titled Campaign of Al-Junayd so far. The other sections are still the old text. Slowly getting there... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rakhigarhi

brother You asked for citation ,but I'm telling the first hand information as I'm the resident of rakhigarhi itself.If you want proof i can happily provide you.

@Sunillohara: Please put a signature on your messages by appending ~~~~.

Since you have just joined Wikipedia, please take time to read through the policies I have put in my welcome message, and learn how things work. You can't write from your personal knowledge on Wikipedia. You can only summarise information that appears in published sources. It might seem strange to you, but that is the only way to produce a community-generated encyclopedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Hi Kautilya3. Do you use Firefox? In that case, there's an add-on for Google Scholar, which adds a button to the top-bar. When you select a phrase or title at a page, and you hit the button, a pop-up appears to navigate to google Scholar, witht he searched-for terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, thanks for the tip! I use Chrome actually (switched to it when Fiefox became too bulky for my little machines), but I might try Firefox again some time. On Chrome actually, I have a search engine defined for Google Scholar. So I type "scholar <phrase>" into the URL box. What I really need is a similar search engine for Google Books, which I don't know how to define. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wauw, you're a crack! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Go to Google Books. Right-click within the search-box and "Add as a search engine". Changing keyword to books (or, whatever else you wish) will parallel Kautilya's setting for google scholar. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are crack master! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GK

See this talk page--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Pakistan-occupied Kashmir," is a term that is almost universally used in India. I think it is a rude term to use, but I also know that it is a valid term, having read Major General Akbar Khan's book. The term "Indian-occupied Kashmir" is used inside Pakistan in a tit-for-tat way, but nobody has ever produced any evidence that India "occupied" it. So, I am perfectly satisfied with the speedy deletions that have been accepted as well as those that were rejected. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You might also see G. K. Reddy, who was India's most authentic journalist when he was alive. Most of us grew up reading his front page stories in The Hindu everyday. I was amazed to read that he started his career in J&K, supported its accession to Pakistan, and then went to work in Pakistan after the Partition. This brash and foolish leftist, at that time, didn't realize that India and Pakistan were going to become enemies. Well, he witnessed Pakistan's "occupation" of Kashmir first hand and brought back to India all his evidence, which was then submitted to the United Nations by India. I would love to get my hands on what he wrote. Someday I will. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, you know, if I'm nominating Indian occupied Kashmir for deletion stating that we should use neutral term "Indian administered Kashmir" then as a non-biased editor I should also nominate other side too. And anyway, even if such kind of article exists still we can't use term "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" in any article, so what the use if it stays or not.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a non-biased editor follows reliable sources. I have given you the sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Indian sentiment vandalism

Please do not blanket remove sourced information which is relevant to the article check anti-Pakistan sentiment article which also includes Indian sources which attempt to explain the sentiments your double standards will not be tolerated. Take it to the talk page. Excipient0 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Excipient0: Sorry, I didn't notice that you wrote here, before I wrote my comments on your talk page. Let us continue the discussion there so that everything is in one place. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Excipient0: I notice that experienced editors are also trying to control the POV editing on the anti-Pakistan sentiment page. Please don't engage in tit-for-tat editing. Please read and follow policies. If you find others not following policies, please bring it to our attention. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up Muslim Conquests on the Indian Subcontinent.Maglorbd (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Many thanks to you in fact for creating so much new content on that page, and also the brilliant map that you produced, which gave me a roadmap for the content on the Battle of Rajasthan page.

I have only proof-read one little section of your content so far. I will do the rest too in the next few weeks. But, overall, I think there is a bit too much detail in your sections. Would you be happy to make this into a separate article on "Arab invasion of Indian subcontinent" (or some such), so that we can write a condensed summary in the main article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You read my mind. Most of the stuff will be shifted to "Arabs and Al Hind" once I get around to posting that and I intend to streamline "Muslim Conquests on The Indian Sub-Continent".Maglorbd (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy education

Dear Kautilya the new pov pusher Human3015 cannot teach me anything first of all he does not know what Synthesis/original research is and it seems you don't either so please don't tell him to guide me he will be blocked eventually as many other nationalists have been before. Excipient0 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Barnstar for completing 5,000 neutral edits on Wikipedia. Best luck for future. Happy Wikipeding!! Thank you. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Humanist, for noticing! But, you know, these edit counts mean little. What matters is what we write, and how well we write it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni

Have you seen my recent changes in Mahmud of Ghazni page? I have edited in "Attitude towards religious freedom" and "Destruction of Somnath Temple" section. I would request you to do some changes in "Regional attitudes towards Mahmud's memory" section. You got the right point yesterday. Several incidents show that Somnath attack had hardy any effect on contemporary Hindu psychology. I am signing off for today.Ghatus (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Good points and they will do for now. Eventually, we should rewrite the section based on contemporary sources. Plenty of people here know that the Raj era sources are biased and shouldn't be used. But, to rewrite, I will need to go back and re-read the Romila Thapar book. We should actually create a separate article for the Many Voices book. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Matangini Hazra

I wanted to edit the article about how she was shot dead. I found these two links. Google books

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Indias-freedom-struggle-told-through-puppets-shadow/articleshow/6744580.cms

But there are other references which mentions the same thing. I can't decide whether my references are better than the existing ones.

This is mobile version:

http://m.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/self-improvement/greatest-women-freedom-fighters

C E (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi CosmicEmperor, These references are not particularly better than the existing ones. But, since the article has only 7 references, most of them inaccessible, there is no harm in adding additional ones. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What does "earlys" mean?

Hi, you used the term "earlys" here back in 2014, but it is unclear what it means. I suspect this is a term that developed in Indian English and hasn't carried over to other forms of English yet. In the context I was raised in, this would mean the years someone spends as an infant, but I don't think many people spend those years in a political party :) -- and it would be a slang term at best for the dialect of English I speak. Please clarify. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a typo of some kind. It should have been "early years". Fixed it now. (Thanks for tracking down these old edits and finding the errors in them!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. I'm guessing it implies that he spent those years in a school founded by the RSS? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Special administrative region

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Special administrative region. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Caste system in India

We need to fix the cite errors in Caste system in India. Please do not revert. Thanks Neel.arunabh^TALK&nbsp —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page posting

Kautilya, are you an admin by the way ? At least you seem to have been here for long.

Although we have had some rough exchanges (including you getting me blocked !, but lets leave that for another time), I would extend good faith to you based on my overall perception. Hence this post.

If you go by the way people have been repeatedly posting on my talk page recently, what is it if not a mob ? I am sure you are aware what happened during the edit-warring episode that Sarah Welch engaged in recently (which you yourself "adjudicated" as having been edit-warring.) How can a mob have the audacity to rather come to my talk page and bombard it with unnecessary messages and inappropriate warning templates, when clearly it is Sarah Welch who is at fault ? What is that if not harassment ? Why did you not respond to any of that, warning/discouraging them to stop harassing me ?

I can even shred apart the most recent message from Sarah Welch on my talk page (again contains a bunch of lies and propaganda), but I would rather not engage in such petty behavior. I am all for having mutual agreements and healthy respectful debates. But I do hope that the admins/long-term editors such as yourself stay neutral without letting their personal bias and past friendships come into play, and display the same sort of swiftness in recognizing harassment targeted at me, as they do when issuing warnings to me. Js82 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Js82:

• No I am not an admin. I have been editing Wikipedia off and on for maybe 5-6 years, but more actively for about a year. So I know reasonably well how Wikipedia works. Ms Sarah Welch is a bit new, but she has learnt things pretty fast and she has been remarkably productive with her contributions. You might have noticed that I recently gave her a tireless contributor barnstar. It takes experience to figure out how to deal with things in a dispute situation when edit-warring occurs. It is not uncommon for both the protagonists to feel that the other party is at fault, and give each other warning messages. But as many of us have pointed out, on the matter of dispute, she was editing according to policy whereas you were not.
• I can see that you are a devout Sikh, and I respect that. But Wikipedia is not a medium for just the Sikh point of view. It is really a medium that summarizes all scholarly knowledge. So, as long as we are representing the scholarly sources accurately, we are doing fine. One thing for sure: Wikipedia is not the place to decide what is "true", especially in enormously complex subjects like religion and social phenomena. All that we can do is to say that scholar A says this and scholar B says that. If there is some other scholar C that has considered the views of both A and B and offered an evaluation or reconciliation, we can report that too. Our only concern is to find out what the scholars have said, and report it faithfully. I have been part of many such debates, the most recent of which is the page on Hindu, where the debate is ongoing. Prior to that we had a big debate on Caste system in India. You can see their talk pages to get a sense of how such debates go. You will see some editors acting as if they have a better of idea of "truth" than the scholars, who almost always lose, because Wikipedia does not support such a position. On the other hand, you will also find healthy debates on the multiple scholarly viewpoints and how to balance them in our presentation.
• I have a feeling that the Sikhism article will also need to go through such a debate. If you want to be a part of it, you need to prepare yourself by mastering the scholarly sources. The first step would be to read the sources that Ms Sarah Welch is bringing to the table, and think about what they say. Then you can look for other sources that present other points of view. However, if you ignore scholarly sources and believe that your views should take priority, you will find yourself on the wrong side of the debate. That will eventually lead you to getting blocked or topic-banned. So, please don't go that route. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan had some words of religious wisdom before me, but he has unfortunately deleted them. So, let me add some from the Sikhism article: In Sikhism, the influences of ego, anger, greed, attachment, and lust—known as the Five Thieves—are believed to be particularly distracting and hurtful. ... The fate of people vulnerable to the Five Thieves ('Pānj Chor'), is separation from God, and the situation may be remedied only after intensive and relentless devotion.[44]

The Bhagavad Gita article highlights the same point: Eknath Easwaran writes that the Gita‍'​s subject is "the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious",[56] and that "The language of battle is often found in the scriptures, for it conveys the strenuous, long, drawn-out campaign we must wage to free ourselves from the tyranny of the ego, the cause of all our suffering and sorrow."[57]

It is up to you to decide what you do with these teachings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted myself, since I wrote this comment out of anger, and thought it might only inflame the irritations. Kautilya3, you set an example with your balanced replies. But since you appreciate them, I'll reinsert those words of mine:

Js82 writes "unnecessary messages and inappropriate warning templates, when clearly it is Sarah Welch who is at fault". From your own userpage: "For a Sikh the greatest war is within themselves [...] the absence of the animal qualities of [...] anger." Self-reflection is one of the qualities necessary for the war within oneself. NB: I'm aware that this too is a patronising comment.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: I think you should increase your range of topics, you should edit vast number of topics on different issues other than religion or Sikhism. People think that you do POV pushing in glorifying Sikhism, so you get numerous notices. Some of editors you have mentioned they also do POV pushing in glorifying Vedic culture, but they don't get such kind of notices, because they follow proper way in pushing POV. You should get the trust of the community by doing some good work for the project. Kautilya and Jonathan are neutral and good editors, they can help you in some sections. Specially Kautilya is always ready to give policy based guidelines to new editors. But I think that you are really improving day by day as a Wikipedian. You can be a nice editor. Just be neutral and broaden your scope or vision. --Human3015^TALK  14:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @JJ: Indeed. I see a repeat of how @Js82 behaved with @SpacemanSpiff, @Apuldram, and @Js82's responses here. Perhaps your words would make @Js82 reflect.

@Human3015: If you know of reliable sources on Sikhism-related wiki pages, which offer other viewpoints and which are not currently summarized, do summarize them, or just identify them on various talk pages, and I or someone will try to summarize them. The main Sikhism article does need a debate and consensus revision, as @Kautilya3 mentions above. Its history section, sub-traditions/denominations, is it a syncretic religion or not, etc – all this has scholarly publications which need to be summarized. I encourage you to contribute. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism in Albania

Just letting you know I declined speedy deletion as none of the criteria you suggested apply. If you believe there is nothing significant to say about Hinduism in Albania, you might want to try WP:PROD or WP:AFD. –Grondemar 21:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. I must have misunderstood the criteria. I should study them more closely. Thanks for notifying me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your RfC

While I understand the intent (I have all those pages on my watchlist!), I think it might be better to first see if (a) the content is even right or fit for inclusion -- vide a discussion at WP:Genetics /WP:Human Genetic History as those projects have the subject matter experts, (b) check for copyvios, I found stray sentences here and there that were copied, something deeper might be helpful. Just a suggestion as an RfC can be a cumbersome process without the right background and it'll be difficult for editors to glean the wheat from the chaff. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: My proposal is mainly based on the principle that primary sources shouldn't be used as a general rule. The policies make that clear, but we haven't been enforcing it for some reason or the other. Using primary sources on Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia is ok, because the subject of the page itself is the primary research. I would like to see the other pages limited to using secondary sources. I hope people will buy that. (Perhaps this doesn't even need an RfC, because it is policy. But we haven't been enforcing it and so it is not on people's consciousness all that much.) The other discussions should of course be useful to getting the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia page into shape. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem when discussing specifics covered under existing policy is that people will not take the time to differentiate the issue. That's one reason more general RfCs seldom result in an outcome as compared to very specific ones. Eitherways, I don't think it'd be a problem trying. —SpacemanSpiff 02:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pebble101

Blocked but that won't stop him as he mainly edits logged out. He hasn't a clue. Poor English, doesn't care if the sources don't mention the subject of the article, and I can confirm that he's copying sentences from copyright sources. Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. If he is doing COPYVIO, shouldn't he be warned about it? I am hoping that he won't edit logged out now because I opened an SPI on him. Perhaps you can give him guidance on on what he can or cannot do while editing logged out?

I am thinking our best bet in the long run is to clean up the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia page so that people are clear what is or isn't acceptable. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, was I an optimist? Another block evasion this morning [3]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Edit On Gurjar Pratihara Page

Thanks Sirdar. Did you write this blog yourself? If not, I am afraid we have to delete it from here copyright reasons. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! We had an edit-conflict; I was just about to collapse this wall of text. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for posting such a long text from a blog,of which I dont retain copyrights.It was just to have a deeper insight into the ethnicity of the Pratihara/Padhiar/Parihar/Pratihar/Padhiyar clan of the rajputs.Neither in any of the lists(Prithviraja Raso,Navsahasanka Charitra,Kumarpal Prabandha,etc etc) of the 36 Royal Clans of Rajputs bear the epithet "Gurjara" with any clan.This term Gurjara Pratihara was carved out to distinguish the Mandor(Gurjar desa branch) branch with the Imperial branch of Kannauj by the Colonial historians then.So there should be no issue over the ethnicity of the clan.References for Gurjara as a country are already included in the Wiki article,and I don't consider it important to discuss them again.Rajput Sirdar (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As to the question whether Gurjara-Pratiharas were ethnic Gurjaras, I would say that I have looked at all the available literature with a fine tooth comb, but I don't have an answer. They could be or they might not. The best I could do is to locate the two latest research papers, by Shanta Rani Sharma and Sanjay Sharma, which argue the opposite sides of the position. You can read both the sources and make up your own mind. Wikipedia can't say either way.

As to whether they were "Rajputs," the answer is clear. Mihirabhoja's inscription (Gwalior Prasasti) claims descent into the Suryavamsha. People who claim descent into the Suryavamsha or Chandravamsha are "Rajputs" by definition. That is all there is to it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Problem

I don't know what you're crazy obsession is with Yasin Malik and continuing to expound biased information about him and about Kashmiris and Pakistanis in general.

Furthermore, after reading your talk page, just in case you labour under this delusion: you and your people are NOT Aryan! There is no such thing. It is a myth created by Nazis and continued by Neo-Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuremind123 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Futuremind123, welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome your contributions as long as you follow the Wikipedia policies. Please try to master them, and if you need any help or suggestions, please feel free to ask. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see any obsession, at least not at Kautilya's part. Kautilya3, please tell us: did the Nazi's say that you're an Aryan? How old are you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry Joshua. Let us not bite the newbies. I hope Futuremind123 will be able to contribute constructively. We need some good Kashmiris (or pro-Kashmiris) around here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Where are the Wikipedia policies? I have noticed that almost all of the controversial statements on the Kashmir dispute are referenced with Indian media sources. What about Pakistani sources? Kashmiri sources? or best of all objective western sources such as the BBC?!!!Futuremind123 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Futuremind123: The links to the policies were posted on your talk page in the welcome message. They are also pointed out to you whenever we revert or comment on your edits.

We don't make distinctions between Indian/Pakistani/Western sources. Trying to be nationalistic or racist about sources is frowned upon. People contribute with whatever sources they have available. You are welcome to bring other sources if you need them. News media can be used for only news, not analysis or opinions. To cite analysis/opinions, you need to find scholarly sources. See RS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to hear the teacher at work here :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're beef is with me? Why do you keep undoing my edits and patrolling me?Futuremind123 (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no beef with you. Since you started out by making "POV edits," i.e., edits based on personal opinions instead of reliable sources, you are on our watch lists. If you edit according to Wikipedia policies, you will be fine. If not, I will tell you so. If you persist, eventually an administrator will take notice and take action. I hope you won't go that route. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Your comments and actions have been noted. Futuremind123 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

I edited Azad Kashmir page and replaced it by Gulaam Kashmir! But I was warned by Wikipedia User! Are u an Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Hindi (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abhishek Hindi: Why did you change it to Gulam Kashmir? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Qki Azad Kashmir nhi vo Gulaam Kashmir hai. Kuchh din phle hi ek Vedio leak hua tha jismein POK k logg Pro India k naare lagaa rhe the aur Azaadi ki maang kar rhe thhe! Aur Pakistani Army unpar julm dhahh rhi thi. Dahalwi Jee jo PoK ka survey karne gaye the Vo bole ki 99% PoK k logg Indian bann na chaahte hai aur Modi Jeee ki taarif krte hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Hindi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abhishek Hindi: As I said earlier, it will not work, we have to go by guidelines. Media reports are usually biased and has nationalistic views and most of protests are sponsored protests in both sides of Kashmir. There is also a big stone industry which provides stones at wholesale price for pelting. You should leave this issue now, we write only "official names" of the provinces.--Human3015^TALK  18:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abhishek Hindi: Your argument above is a text book example of original research (OR). Wikipedia would not have been useful resource if we did OR in our writings. In any case, it is not permitted. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, starting with the "Five pillars" article linked on your talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And one thing more! How to create page and edit page in Hindi language? I created a page about A school in My District but it was deleted the next day! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Hindi (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. You can't write Hindi pages in it. You are welcome to contribute to the "Hindi Wikipedia", which you can find by googling. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ikshvaku (disambiguation)

In case you haven't noticed, this is a pending move discussion that I had relisted (after a close in favor) because of all the other activity surrounding it. I think there were some of you who had some ideas on this, so feel free to participate so that a proper close can happen. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy checking into our other friend. I have commented at the RFM now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for suppourt and guidence. 39.47.189.218 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@39.47.189.218: You are welcome. It would be a lot easier for all of us, however, if you were to register as a user. The IP addresses are not exactly memorable and you would lose editing privileges if the page were to be semi-protected. As for your edits to Kashmir conflict, I am glad that you have provided good sources. I don't entirely agree with the edits however. The material from Rajmohan Gandhi seems to be out of context because the Plebiscite was not "denied", it was promised. The reason why it wasn't held is much more complicated, as I am sure you know. More later when I contemplate what is to be done about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

can i take any legal action against Mr Sitush

He is deriving history of cast based on novel written by some bastards and moreover deciding their clan of Verma system. Only if can provide Mr sitush address and full name. I also want to send him a notice and something special for his biased contribution. Pankaj.kushwaha1983 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. All this, just because he wrote that Kushwahas were originally Shudras? Fear not, dear brother. Being a humble Shudra myself, we can fight the Kshatriyas together. But, pretend to be Kshatriyas? That is only for cowards. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You are? My grandfathers were both manual labourers; does that put us in the same category? I'd would be proud for it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, pretty much all Hindus are Shudras, with Barhmins and Vaishyas making up perhaps 5% each. All Kshatriyas disappeared (perhaps fighting each other) before the beginning of history. But pretend-Kshatriyas abound. Practically everybody wants to be a Kshatriya. The medieval Hindu kings probably encouraged this, wanting to recruit fighting men. Perhaps the Mughals did it too, accepting the claims of the Rajputs. But when the British came on the scene, it was a free for all. It is time to forget all this and remain happy being Shudras. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely, you know of the blue-eyed blonde connection? —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually Shudra is very subjective term, though there are 4 varnas still anyone other than Brahman is Shudra. Shudras fight among each other to become or to show that they little bit superior among Shudras. Kshatriyas are just "superior Shudras". This is how everything is working. But if we see original definition of Brahmana, it says anyone can become "Brahmana" by his Karma or good or moral deeds. Brahman should be recognised by his deeds not by birth. For example Kautilya is claiming that he is "Shudra" but as per his good beheviour on Wikipedia he is Brahman by his karma.--Human3015^TALK  18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Let us not go there. Shudras are always capable of good behaviour!

“ About a dozen rishis, whose mothers belonged to what may be regarded as the one or the other section of Shudra varna, are enumerated in the Bhavishya Purana. With minor modifications the list recurs in several other Puranas and the Mahabharata. It informs us that Vyasa was born of a fisherwoman, Parasara of a shvapaka woman, Kapinjalad of a chandala woman, Vasishtha of a prostitute, and the best of the sages Madanapala was the child of a boatwoman. As a justification for this kind of list, it is said at the end that the origins of the rishis, rivers, pious people, great souls and the of the [..] character of women cannot be discovered. (Thus the tradition, as the institution of caste developed, was equally aware that spirituality and virtue transcended caste.) ”

- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Human3015, you're a crypto-Buddhist! To elaborate: Jesus was a carpenter, and his disciples were fisherman (this makes me a crypro-Christian, of course). On the other hand: many characters in the Buddhist stories are of Brahmin-origin... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, you and some of other editors are the group who considers me as Buddhist, there is one group of editors who considers me as Hindu nationalist, and there is one group who considers me as Muslim because I have very much contribution to Islam related topics specially tourist places and Sufism, my just yesterday's DYK was Islam related. But I consider myself as just Human, thats why I chose name Human3015, 3015 is for 3015AD, 1000 years from now, by that time we can hope that there will be religion free society and everyone will be recognised as Human and not as Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc. --Human3015^TALK  04:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Schoolmaster

Where do the schoolmasters fit in at the varna-system? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you believe the fiction that varnas are assigned based on character, all teachers and scholars would be Brahmanas. Upadhyaya is the Sanskrit term for teacher. Acharya is also used. Bengalis still use names of this kind, e.g., bandopadhyaya (anglicized to "Banerjee") and bhattacharaya etc. The term guru denotes a more personalized idea of a teacher. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha. I missed the smiley at the end! Thanks! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Got you there :) Keep up the good works! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation tool

Do you know any other tools like the one you mentioned at Ghatus talk page? --The Avengers (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Avenger, Help:Citation tools lists a whole bunch. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Source

I was wondering if this website (http://www.dsource.in/) would be okay to use for source regarding various topics related to India on wikipedia? Pebble101 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't use any web sites.

I will look at your posts on F-M89 in a little while. I have been busy with other things. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't use websites for source? I was thinking about improving rangoli page, since it's seems to be a mess with no historic content regarding it's affiliation with mandala and chakra.Pebble101 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Only web sites of reputable organisations can be used, that too for lightweight information. All historical information must be sourced to WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to be toooooooo confusing...

....‎Kautilya3 (talk | contribs | block)‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Invincible Chanakya (talk). —SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But there is one Kautilya, and all Chanakyas are pretenders... - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ravana

Your edit history shows that u have much experience regarding Hinduism related articles. I invite u to have a look at Ravana. The article is scarcely sourced and yesterday I removed 2 images of a Hindu woman painting by Ravi Varma and Shiva mistaken as Ravana's wife and Ravana himself (looks like a mischief!), respectively. I hope u will help making this article encyclopaedic! Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Septate, I am interested in Religious Studies, but not Religions per se. I am happy to keep a watch on Ravana and defend against vandalism/POVs, but I can't do much more than that. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Septate, File:Ravi Varma-Lady Giving Alms at the Temple.jpg is not necessarily of Mandodari but it has been used by The Week to illustrate her. Since then, I suppose, this painting has been recognized as of Mandodari. Don't know the history; this is just my cursory reading here and there. And File:Shiva meditating Rishikesh.jpg had the caption "Ravana described as a follower of Shiva" which I assume was just poor English and should have been "Ravana has been described as a follower of Shiva (picture)." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For the warning message and the advice. Those edits were accidental, but lets not get into that. Js82 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And I notice you mentioned "I am sorry that you have to go through this, but that is the way it is"..just curious, why would you be sorry ? Is it empathy or you feel like some injustice was done ? Feel free to ignore this message, if you wish. Js82 (talk)

It is indeed empathy. Those of us that have been here a while try to warn users that are going the "wrong" way. But we often don't succeed in convincing them that it matters. Because Wikipedia gives us a lot of freedom, people tend to assume that it is a free-for-all. But that is the not the case. There are rules and sooner or later they come back to bite you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe, just maybe, those people (new editors) actually quickly realize the futility of this entire exercise (given their experiences). Henceforth, they cling on, hoping that they can still actually make some positive impact. But alas, the suffocation and hounding from the existing coterie simply becomes unbearable.

This may be useful, although it may break your bubble:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

Some quotes from there (just quoting directly what is out there, so no lawsuits on me, please): "This doesn't even get into the problem of veteran editors strong-arming their clout to remove edits by genuine university researchers; which happens very often. All of these things undermine this "encyclopedia" as nothing more than a social experiment which, unless it can fix these shortcomings it will be unable to sustain itself and will fall victim to failure. " .... " .. " poorly educated "professional amateurs" produced by our increasingly discredited and ideologically extreme university system, who edit Wikipedia because they are incapable of doing original research or making tangible contributions to society", ... " ...never bother trying to edit much of anything there, since petty little panjandrums who know nothing of research have turned the site into a cargo-cult encyclopedia." ... " .. "Hopefully, at some point, we'll go back to asking experts (meaning, people who have actually demonstrated their expertise) and leaving the amateur publications for the hobbyists. Until that day, we are going to be victimizing ourselves with truly unnecessary amounts of bad data, incorrect assumptions and outright untruths." "...a Byzantine organization with a hypertechnical format and an outrageously * userbase that gets ever more arrogant and arbitrary the higher up one goes. The simple fact is that the only people who actually enjoy operating in that kind of environment subscribe to that mentality" .. "....If you are looking for fairly trivial info like what the track listing of an old Stones album was and get some tidbits of info about it, Wikipedia is fine. If you are looking for info on something of actual importance then forget Wikipedia. The site has a disclaimer right on it that indicates it should not be used for serious research." "...you end up with ridiculous situations where people who are true experts get driven away by amateurs and crackpots.." "...There is no attempt to fact check anything. You make an edit based on the fact you are a subject matter expert and your edit is removed without discussion or recourse. It is a preposterous system." ... "Basically the basement dwellers who have nothing better to do but change the edits end up winning through attrition. I get the impression these people get off on being able to control the content and keep it to their liking. Whether it is correct or not is secondary."

PS: I did not really want to get into all this, but since you made your point, thought I would share the other side of the story as well. Take it easy. Js82 (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice cherry-picking. Since this is about "online collaboration," frustrations may turn up when those "petty little panjandrums who know nothing of research" have the nerve to disagree with you and question your edits, and even go so far as to cite scholarly research instead of "amateur publications." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hindu American Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fremont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

About Tricolor

The Swaraj flag redirects to Flag of India which is already in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but a reader is not expected to know that ahead of time. (But note that you were pointing it to a totally irrelevant article on tricolor!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seems irrelevant, I will remove the link. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the Swaraj flag link should remain, even if it is the same article. You don't have seem to have understood what I said! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And also, when you discuss, you should try to arrive at consensus before implementing changes! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why should have the same link two times? According to WP:OLINK external links only are for emphasize and a link should appear only once in an article. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, sorry, I misunderstood you, thought that we already achieve consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, links are definitely not for emphasis. Please read WP:UNDERLINK again. Then you can tell me how a link to the "Flag of India" serves the purpose of "Flag of Indian independence movement." - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry wrong word, I mean clarify. The link "Flag of India" helps editors to understand the creation and the meaning of the flag and its history. Now why we should have the two links? Especially when you link it to the word "Tricolor". Rupert Loup (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are a reader that knows what the flag of India is but you don't know what the flag of independence movement was, what would you want? Wouldn't the link that I added serve the purpose? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the two links are the same article. A reader would look in the article that said "Flag of India" if they want know that, not Tricolor, that's misleading and unnecessary. It's not a good reason so please revert it. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Look buddy, the "Swaraj flag" and "Flag of India" are two different concepts which happen to be discussed in the same article. Whenever a concept needs additional explanation, we provide a wikilink. It doesn't matter whether they are in the same article or not. Now let it go. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope

confirmed sock

Hope after SPI result you will be quite clear that I never socked. Let us have a fresh start leaving behind bad memories. I expect good coordination between us on sensitive articles. NA122 (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @NA122: As the admin Ponyo has pointed out to you here, your actions have been very disruptive todate. Your severe case I din't hear that to justify your reverts from 15 October [4], and 19 October [5], [6] despite repeated prods, is a serious problem. You have held up the progress of this article for a whole week for no good reason. If you want a "fresh start," you need to undo your reverts or start discussing your issues with the version you reverted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Yes surly I will follow Ponyo instructions. For your allegations I have replied in detail on Kashmir conflict talk page. Hope fully that will clear your reservations. I will edit in good spirit and have high hopes that we will have good envoirnment in future. NA122 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, you have been making new edits of your own liking and asking people to discuss those. You have said nothing about the old content that you have deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I made edit and asked for any objection by adding a talk page section. One of my edit restored your own edit [7]. Then what is wrong in it. Wrong is when people edit and then if some one objects on talk page they report him on SPI or get page protected. Anyways Your all questions have been aswered here [8]. I well come your suggestions. NA122 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) The protocol we follow is WP:BRD. Bold edits can be made. But, when reverted, they should be discussed. If either the original editor or the reverter fails to discuss, you can ask for sanctions. I appreciate that you have opened discussions on your edits, but that does not necessarily stop people from reverting your edits if there is something wrong with them. If they revert them, they need to explain their actions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

what type of illogical data s this??

what type of illogical data s this??. see 1951 census of PAK(only west Pakistan).Pak had 15% hindus that time

Year	Percentage of total population	Increase
1951	1.3%	-
1961	1.4%	+0.1%
1981	1.5%	+0.1%
1998	1.6%	+0.1%
2016	Future Census	Future Census

--Conradjagan (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Conradjagan: What do you mean by "see 1951 census of PAK"? See where? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to the Census of Pakistan article have the same problems. As per WP:NEWSORG, newspapers are only reliable for news, not for historical information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

where is the reliable source for 1.6% Hindu population in West PAK in 1951 and overall 12.9% of PAK census 1951??? where is the third-party source???--Conradjagan (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I showed you the scholarly sources when I first raised the issue in Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan#Population statistics. Have you looked at them? Apparently not. Instead, you have continued to fill the articles with faulty data. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment

You must comment and give your own opinion in that SPI where I pinged you. --1.39.39.77 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have noted all the involved IPs as the suspected socks of LX. Thanks again. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this edit you reverted was really of "CosmicEmperor" or is it another attempt to gaming the system by someone?. I wonder how that IP has update of every detail, specially regarding people who hound me. I think I got a fan. --Human3015^TALK  18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, probably. See these edits [9]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of India. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Alhazen

Would you be interested in giving your opinion on some sources on the Alhazen talk page?--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Both the IPs belonged to LanguageXpert

In the Kashmir conflict DRN both the IPs: 115.186.146.225 and 39.47.50.14 were actually one person. He was communicating with himself. He takes Indian names, female names to confuse his opponents.

He removed the SPI notice. One sould have checked his block log. Maria0333 is LanguageXpert. Read the full archive to know the tricks and socking games played by LanguageXpert as I won't be there next time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive

If you need help regarding India-Pakistan disputes, contact European administrators. Indian administrators will act over the top neutral and support Pakistan's POV so that they won't be accused of favouring Indians. Don't contact NeilN even if he is interested. Better visit ANI as there would be Canadian and British administrators. If you visit WP:RPP, where NeilN is always active, he will take a decision which will help Pakistanis as he full protected the page 5 lakh times instead of semiprotecting indefinitely to give equal rights to sock IPs. If you and I can know they are socks, it's hard to believe that an experienced user as NeilN won't know they are socks.

Last Warning- Don't ask help from Indian administrators and Indian administrator wannabes (as they need votes from Pakistani editors in their RFA).

duplicate

In the Kashmir conflict WP:DRN bothe IPs: 115.186.146.225 and 39.47.50.14. He was communicating with himself. He takes Indian names, female names to confuse his opponents. You and @Human3015: should check the full History of He removed the SPI notice. One sould have checked his block log. Maria0333 is LanguageXpert. Read the full archive to know the tricks and socking games played by LanguageXpert as I won't be there next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive If you need help regarding India-Pakistan disputes, contact European administrators. Indian administrators will act over the top neutral and support Pakistan's POV so that they won't be accused of favouring Indians. Don't contact NeilN even if he is interested. Better visit ANI as there would be Canadian and British administrators. If you visit WP:RPP, where NeilN is always active, he will take a decision which will help Pakistanis as he full protected the page 5 lakh times instead of semiprotecting indefinitely to give equal rights to sock IPs. If you and I can know they are socks, it's hard to believe that an experienced user as NeilN won't know they are socks. Last Warning- Don't ask help from Indian administrators and Indian administrator wannabes (as they need votes from Pakistani editors in their RFA). In the Kashmir conflict WP:DRN bothe IPs: 115.186.146.225 and 39.47.50.14. He was communicating with himself. He takes Indian names, female names to confuse his opponents. You and @Human3015: should check the full History of He removed the SPI notice. One sould have checked his block log. Maria0333 is LanguageXpert. Read the full archive to know the tricks and socking games played by LanguageXpert as I won't be there next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive If you need help regarding India-Pakistan disputes, contact European administrators. Indian administrators will act over the top neutral and support Pakistan's POV so that they won't be accused of favouring Indians. Don't contact NeilN even if he is interested. Better visit ANI as there would be Canadian and British administrators. If you visit WP:RPP, where NeilN is always active, he will take a decision which will help Pakistanis as he full protected the page 5 lakh times instead of semiprotecting indefinitely to give equal rights to sock IPs. If you and I can know they are socks, it's hard to believe that an experienced user as NeilN won't know they are socks. Last Warning- Don't ask help from Indian administrators and Indian administrator wannabes (as they need votes from Pakistani editors in their RFA). In the Kashmir conflict WP:DRN bothe IPs: 115.186.146.225 and 39.47.50.14. He was communicating with himself. He takes Indian names, female names to confuse his opponents. You and @Human3015: should check the full History of He removed the SPI notice. One sould have checked his block log. Maria0333 is LanguageXpert. Read the full archive to know the tricks and socking games played by LanguageXpert as I won't be there next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive If you need help regarding India-Pakistan disputes, contact European administrators. Indian administrators will act over the top neutral and support Pakistan's POV so that they won't be accused of favouring Indians. Don't contact NeilN even if he is interested. Better visit ANI as there would be Canadian and British administrators. If you visit WP:RPP, where NeilN is always active, he will take a decision which will help Pakistanis as he full protected the page 5 lakh times instead of semiprotecting indefinitely to give equal rights to sock IPs. If you and I can know they are socks, it's hard to believe that an experienced user as NeilN won't know they are socks. Last Warning- Don't ask help from Indian administrators and Indian administrator wannabes (as they need votes from Pakistani editors in their RFA). In the Kashmir conflict WP:DRN bothe IPs: 115.186.146.225 and 39.47.50.14. He was communicating with himself. He takes Indian names, female names to confuse his opponents. You and @Human3015: should check the full History of He removed the SPI notice. One sould have checked his block log. Maria0333 is LanguageXpert. Read the full archive to know the tricks and socking games played by LanguageXpert as I won't be there next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive If you need help regarding India-Pakistan disputes, contact European administrators. Indian administrators will act over the top neutral and support Pakistan's POV so that they won't be accused of favouring Indians. Don't contact NeilN even if he is interested. Better visit ANI as there would be Canadian and British administrators. If you visit WP:RPP, where NeilN is always active, he will take a decision which will help Pakistanis as he full protected the page 5 lakh times instead of semiprotecting indefinitely to give equal rights to sock IPs. If you and I can know they are socks, it's hard to believe that an experienced user as NeilN won't know they are socks. Last Warning- Don't ask help from Indian administrators and Indian administrator wannabes (as they need votes from Pakistani editors in their RFA).

Even Nangparbat takes Indian names.

Thanks for the info. I agree that the IP 115 is an important piece of the zigsaw puzzle. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We had so long debate with IP 115, his block log says he has been blocked multiple times since 2013 for block evasion/multiple accounts. CUs can't declare whose sock this IP is because of privacy reason, but they are giving block summaries like "block evasion", "Multiple account" etc. If we would have seen his block log then our many hours would have been saved. Next time we need to be careful.--Human3015^TALK  16:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, at that time, I knew practically nothing about socks. But, we learn, as time passes... - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also not much aware of these things that time. As far as IPs are concerned I was very much under influence of this essay at that time.--Human3015^TALK  18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't generalize from a few bad apples. The essay is still valid! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya, essay is still valid, I think we behave good with IPs and new users. Specially I see new users are many times victim of BITE by some users. I think we can give one more chance to LanguageExpert. He was blocked 2-3 years ago, since then he is trying to make comeback on Wikipedia. Suppose his age is between 25-30 years then can he never ever allowed to edit Wikipedia for his entire rest of long life? In real life many people oppose death sentence or capital punishment to criminals for any kind of crime, even courts prescribes death sentence only for rarest of rare crimes. "Permanent block" is like death sentence or capital punishment which is very common on Wikipedia. I think in most severe cases 6 months to 1 year block is sufficient, vandal-only accounts can be blocked permanently. But those who do some kind of constructive edits or non-vandals should not be blocked permanently. Once someone gets blocked permanently for some mistakes then there is no way of return for that user for rest of his/her life, because whenever he/she will return other experienced people can easily recognise him/her by editing behaviour. I think permanent blocks are pathetic, it only promotes sock-puppetry. If he gets blocked for 6 months or a year then at least he can start with more sensible manner after comeback. "Permanet blocks" are "inhuman". --Human3015^TALK  19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think people can appeal to ARBCOM if they badly want to get back, and demonstrate goodwill. But LX is never going to show any goodwill. So, quit worrying about him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help other users to edit.

sock posts

Hey thanks .You may help to edit mehdi hazarika Wikipedia. I can't edit properly . A Z 10:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazarika MAZ (talk • contribs) Hello, Hazarika MAZ, I will copy this message over to your talk page and reply there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Oh thank you after akes your question we check all dtls as possible. & we also have a group but we all are new & the real man mehdi Alam hazarika to upload his page we create a user in Wikipedia granted permission as name hazarika maz. And do some experiment. However now he have a own page & we proud because we did it & we never upload any wrong information in Internet .We just write 'we are the world' this is the favourite sentence of mehdi hazarika. & this user hazarika maz is not a person to create about the real man mehdi alam hazarika .We create this user. & thanks again & sorry we are not so expert in English we translated all In our own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazarika MAZ (talk • contribs) 10:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) @Hazarika MAZ: I am sorry. This is English Wikipedia and solid competence in English is required in order to edit it. The page you have created will very soon be deleted because it is not built according to Wikipedia policies. I think you need to use Facebook and Twitter for what you want to do, not Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for replying I can understand what you trying to say but about this page that hasn't any wrong information about mehdi hazarika .& it's not about edit ourself we create mehdi hazarika Wikipedia because many people want to know about hazarika maz so it's not the matter about Twitter or Facebook because this type account can't explain about hazarika clarli so we bag you don't try to delete this if you want to know more about hazarika contact with us or contact with hazarika directly .& if you delete many people face the problem to know about him. So contact us personally .However I hop what we're trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazarika MAZ (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Kautilya3, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MusicAnimal. And, thank you too Human3015 for your nomination. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your post to my talkpage

WP:DTTR. Also, what do you want? If I place a {{who}} template because people dumped random stuff without proper references, do you expect me to write an edit summary explaining that people should cite their sources every time? --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: I have no idea whether you are a regular or not, but Xtools was down when I tried to check and your edit history indicates very little use of edit summaries. The "regulars" do not have separate rules from the newbies. We all have to follow the same policies.

You made about 10 edits to Brahmagupta with only one edit carrying an edit summary. If you make extensive edits to pages without leaving edit summaries, it is difficult for us to review them. The template that I posted on your talk page whivh you reverted, explains why edit summaries are important. I suggest that you read it thoroughly. If you are unable to write edit summaries we can't have confidence in your edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, I'm sorry to see you poke a user like dab about such a thing and in such a manner, and answering so rudely when he objects. With that plus your latest input on my page, my previously good opinion of your judgment has taken something of a dive. :-( But then you probably don't much care about my opinion — I'm just a bully, right? I'm done here, as I hope you are on my page. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Ok, peace! I know nothing about Dbachmann. This is the first time I encountered him or her. The couple of pages of edit history that I reviewed had very few edit summaries. I hope we are not going to encourage that! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think no one is encouraging that. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On advice

Honestly, I don't think giving broad "how Wikipedia works"-type advice helps with a discussion, even when given in good faith it just gets people's backs up. And unless it is dealing with very specific content on a case-by-case basis I do not think it can make a positive contribution. It is the same for your "You are welcome to" comment: my thought was "how gracious of you to grant me rights I already have as an editor!". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "grant" you the rights. I was merely stating what you are allowed to do according to policy. You do not have rights to make edits against policy, e.g., making unsourced or poorly sourced edits. Once you have properly sourced edits, then you need to worry about achieving consensus for them. Without consensus, your edits will simply get reverted, and you can keep edit warring until eventually you will get blocked. Your wish. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Having an ability to edit allows me to edit - it does not require an insincere "welcome" permission statement from you beforehand, complete with ill-disguised threat. Also, it's my experience that the worst editors are those who continually cite their interpretations of Wikipedia policies, interpretations which are rarely correct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Showtime

Hey,

Know you're already always busy, but, I believe there's two more going on here. Tiptroe, and Alxndrtgrt. The perfect timing of Tiptroe's jumping in, his constant reinstatement of the same unsourced bogus, etc. I mean, the behavioral evidence for that article at least and edits made elsewhere by both users related to the article are just too insanely syncing together. With other contributions I don't see much of an overlap however. Perhaps a SPI or not worth it? - LouisAragon (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently, Tiptoe has rights and he/she won't take any threats. He/she knows Wikipedia policies and doesn't need any of us to interpret them. Good luck to us! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Tiptoe wants a detailed response from you to the points raised on Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Please remember that the ARBIPA sanctions apply to you just as much as him/her. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I believe the points adressed by me under Kansas' comments are sufficient regarding our stance. Looking at what happened and what we see, honestly none of us should waste anymore time with it. Next time instant, simply instant warnings should be warranted as well as page protections. Time is a costly thing. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Kalinga

This has good information on Kalinga. Can I use it to add some? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Romila Thapar and Upinder Singh texts are among the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Caliph Al-Amin

Hi, just letting you know that I fixed your attempt at creating a redirect.

The correct syntax for creating a redirect is

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

Good luck. — Smjg (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Smjg. I knew the right thing to write but I had blanked out about it in the midst of other edits. Thanks for taking care of these redirect pages. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kalinga

This has good information on Kalinga. Can I use it to add some? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Romila Thapar and Upinder Singh texts are among the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Caliph Al-Amin

Hi, just letting you know that I fixed your attempt at creating a redirect.

The correct syntax for creating a redirect is

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

Good luck. — Smjg (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Smjg. I knew the right thing to write but I had blanked out about it in the midst of other edits. Thanks for taking care of these redirect pages. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you Dharmadhyaksha for your best wishes and for the beautiful greeting card. I wish you a joyful Diwali and a great year going forward! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Takafumi1

I noticed you have had a one sided conversation with user:Takafumi1. You and/or Ghatus, might want to check Takafumi1's edits on Raja Raja Chola I. Some sources appear to be reliable, but do not appear to support the sentence they are referencing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Takafumi is not the talkative type. I have watch-listed the page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Diwali greetings

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you Pankaj. I wish you a great Diwali as well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahom's mention on History of India page

So, citation style can be fixed, isn't it? Does that mean that Ahom's mention need to be taken off from the History of India page? Can we please talk on the talk page of History of India?

Amit20081980 (User talk:Amit20081980) 3:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Then fix it, but don't just re-insert it and then walk away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amit20081980: I did not object to your content. You can add it back with the correct citations. Every citation should contain at a minimum, the author, title, publisher and year. If you don't know this, that indicates that you haven't read the "Five pillars" policies you were told about in your welcome message. Please read them. You have been here long enough. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support sir <3

Sir, i genuinely wanted to cintribute well .Initially i had edited using mobile .So first few edits,i did not care to add comment on ma edit .As you know,it is very difficult to edit on mobiles.Constant revertings pissed me off .I did not know to read notifications on talk page .So i kept editing and felt that the reverting editor is malintentioned ,so i became aggressive.Though i dont justify my behavior completely ,as you say they shud provide us more assistance ,which will not only encouage us, but also motivate us to become good contributors .Thanks again :) Ranjan s nayak (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Ranjan s nayak (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Response

Response on Yumiko86's talk. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa is up to it again

Hello you'll remember I told you that DeCausa had been earlier editing and inserting his own POV views without even caring for a discussion. Welk he has started indulging in that behavior yet again. I can't see where to take it so I came with it here. This is the kind of annoying uncaring attitude for cooperation that made me revert his edits earlier. Of course however I haven't reverted it this time as I promised. In this edit he has removed the sentence about non-orthodox views of tritheism and physical sonship of Jesus on his own accord without discussing even once. "He gives the reason for removing in edit as remove Watt citation not relevant to sentence and references to "tritheism and physical sonship of Jesus" not attributed to watt in Sirry source)". He removed this based on his own POV of the statement, that too despite it beibg completely relevant and extremely short in length. Not only that the source used to cite it is Watt's iwn Muhammad at Medina bot Sirry's Scriptural Polemics. He even himself accepted it is there in Muhammad at Medina in the talk page. I could take this to ANI but complaining over something that has happened once recently isn't feasible. So I'll request you to talk to him and at the least warn him if he does this type of behaviour again. I thought we all agreed to cooperate. This kind of callous behaviour just plain unacceptable. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

All this is water and the bridge now. The entire Quran paragraph is supposed to be replaced with the succinct new paragraph on the talk page (section: Proposal). Please provide your comments there.

It is always fine to use WP:BRD, i.e., one revert followed by discussion. Please be sure to include a pointer to the edit in the discussion so that I can figure out what is being talked about. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The succint new paragraph hasn't even reached consensus. What's more as I've already pointed out the propsed paragraph has excluded Watt's other argument in support of Quran talking about actual non-orthodox Christian practices. But as I've already said DeCausa has edited without a consensus. He removed the mention of non-Orthodox beliefs such as triethism and physical sonship of Jesus and even his reasons given for it is inaccurate and shows he did it based on his own views. He didn't even care to discuss it. This is seriously ridiculous uncooperative behaviour. I have already notified him about his edit and I'm waiting for a response from him. But still if he continues this behaviour, I hope you'll talk to him and warn him if he keeps on with such a behaviour. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging Brahmins

Even Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads challenge Brahmins. Doesn't mean anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Change your vote in the RFC, and lets find better sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

NA122

You remember the SPI filed by LanguageXpert sock against all of us. He accused senior editors of being socks. He included me along with others including you. Some LanguageXpert socks have female names and Hindu names. Aishabaloch is having a Baluch surname and a female name but speaking against Baluch leaders. In Baluchistan Conflict she removed accusation against Pakistan Army. She created Sarfraz Bugti naming Baluchistan Republican Army as terrorist organization. Ring any bells? --The Avengers (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. See her talk page as well as Wikipedq's. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing kindness and having goodheart to understand newcomers

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Thanks for showing kindness and having goodheart to understand newcomers

Happy sage (talk)

Thank you Happy Sage. I hope you will enjoy your time at Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Template:Hindu philosophy. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jammu and Kashmir may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarisation.{{sfn|Korbel|1953|pp=506–507}}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

many doubts

First of all,thanks... I used "edit" option available at talk page to put my post. But should i call u sir/madam or any specific way to address.? :) 2.I did not get this comment "However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammar" if we are not to use "edit" button to reply ,what else to? /Agf/ 3.i feel lack of privacy for using real name.How to change the username? 4.is it really necessary to use full sentences (which is boring to type for me ) . 5. Is it ok to clear Userpage chat and edit what i wrote on article page 6. One to one chat s not provided and also any1 else can change our userpage Thanks.. Looking fwd fr constructive work and i m sorry to have come up witb so many questions ,itz fyn if u just gjve the links else you have to keep typing like me :p Ranjan s nayak (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC) 7.my .mobile makes it difficult to type,do you type on pc & browser ? 8.typos in talk pages and grammar floutings fyn ryt .. I dont feel like correcting grammar n typo styff #whatsapp effect

Thanks.. Looking fwd fr constructive work and i m sorry to have come up witb so many questions ,itz fyn if u just gjve the links else you have to keep typing like me :p Ranjan s nayak (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In this edit [10], you not ony added your message, but also removed/edited the previous messages. It is possible that you were editing an old version of the page, which got changed in the meantime. In that case, you get an "edit conflict" when you try to save the post, and you required to merge your post with the previous edits so that there is no loss. I can imagine that it would be difficult to do on a mobile phone screen. If a mobile is all that you can manage, then you might limit yourself to short talk page posts. You don't need to express every thought that occurs to you, but only the most important points that have a chance of making impact. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to clear your User talk page. One of us will install an archiving bot which will archive old messages. You can just call me "Kautilya". No need for honorifics. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Kautilya.When i felt difficult to type, i later tried using a laptop of my bro.But could not use it all the time :) I feel a lot confident because of your help at wikepedia. God bless..

Happy sage (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

History template

Hello, I thought i would notify you that there is something wrong with History of India template, when you click edit or view this template it keeps redirecting to History of Fiji. 117.192.213.146 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. No problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Scaling down

Hello talk page watchers, My health is down unfortunately, and I am scaling down a lot of my patroling activities on Wikipedia. I will continue to edit in my areas of interest (history and politics), but I am stopping all the routine vandalism-fighting and new-user mentoring that I have been doing since the beginning of summer. I hope others will take over. Please be sure to cite policies when you revert newbies and give them welcome messages that attempt to educate them. And, try not to use the rollbacker's rollback, which is I think the most useless button on Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hindustani language

There's an editor who has been changing sourced figures in a number of articles to figures that go against what the sources say. If you look at Hindustani language, you'll see that there is a source for the figures - it's somewhat old, but no newer source has been supplied, and changing the figures to a number that doesn't agree with the existing sources is of course against WIkipedia policy. I understand that the topic is fraught with controversy, but that's why we need to stick to what the sources say... All the best, --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry that I didn't check more carefully. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Allat's image in Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

There's a supposed image of Allat saying the relief shown it is from Taif in the "Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia" article. I say supposed because I haven't been able to verify it as real. I've given the detail of me trying to verify its authenticity on the talk page of the article. No editor is focusing on that. However I hope you can focus on it. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)