This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hi, I see you have reverted my edit in the Arabic numerals article. I think there is a misunderstanding on your part here. The Arabic numerals article talks about the decimal glyphs (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), it does not talk about the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. The system did indeed originate in India. The Glyphs , however, are a pure Arab invention and has nothing to do with India. They were first invented by the Arabs of North Africa and Spain, and the source for that is already provided in the article. So I don't see what is your point of objection exactly? Viaros17 ( talk) 17:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Viaros17, If you are trying to label the numeral glyphs themselves as an invention, I am not sure if the term "invention" is appropriate. Have any other numeral glyphs have been labelled as "inventions"? You also need to keep in mind that the term "Arabic numerals" in normal English means the numeral system, just as "Roman numerals" means the corresponding numeral system. So I think this is too contentious and not worth the trouble.

Secondly, it is not clear if the Western Arabic numerals have been developed independently or whether they were adaptations of Indian or some other system of glyphs. Traditionally, I believe the Arabs used to use letters for numerals, just like the Romans did (as per Al Beruni's writings). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that these glyphs are the most used numerals in the world, one could argue that the invention is somehow "worthy". And it is true that there is a debate on the origin of these numbers. Still, the leading theory trace their origin into the Arabic alphabet. And it is indisputable fact that the numerals in their current form are North African in origin, which what matters here.

Anyway, I will leave my claim for now until I study the matter more thoroughly. Maybe i will re-add the category in the future after consulting the admins. Viaros17 ( talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, this discussion should be copied on to the article talk page. I will do so now. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like what I'm adding, don't censor it. Irfan Habib isn't talking about any Aryan invasion, but simply a migration which is the topic. So I fail to see your problem.

If it's simply because of the interpretations about Dasas being dark-complexioned, you can add a contrary view. But you cannot pick and choose what to add or remove. It is unethical to only consider one reliable source as correct and censor another reliable source.

As for taking a break, I will not be cowing down to your threats or letting you get away with what you want. Reliably sourced and relevant content should be added MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 22:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you are back to square-A. Your wish. Don't say that I didn't warn you. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been removing me over the similar things: The first - Aryan invasion, I already dropped it. The second - different color of Dasas/Dasyus. If you have contradictory opinions, you can add it. But it's clear, you are only removing content based on what you don't agree with. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judicial Watch. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Never realised that the late Harappans were kind of split-up; sites had moved north and south, due to aridisation. See Giosan (2012) p.4. and Narasimhan et al. (2018). So, which Harappans moved south and mixed with the hunter-gatherers to form the Dravidians? Quite obvious, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. If you are saying that Dravidian languages spread from the IVC, then it would have had to happen while the IVC was still flourishing. After it died, there is hardly any reason for its language to spread, because it didn't just spread, it replaced whatever languages were spoken earlier in South India. For that to happen, there would have had to be strong cultural/technological reasons that gave the new language dominance. After the IVC died, there were no such reasons.

My feeling is that the IVC-Dravidian connection is a red herring. I think the IVC people just stayed where they were and mixed with new people that came. They were a settled civilization, not nomads like the Aryans were. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Narasimhan eta al. (2018) p.14:

the ASI and ANI were both largely unformed at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, and imply that the ASI may have formed in the course of the spread of West Asian domesticates into peninsular India beginning around 3000 BCE (where they were combined with local domesticates to form the basis of the early agriculturalist economy of South India (40)), or alternatively in association with eastward spread of material culture from the Indus Valley after the IVC declined (41). Further evidence for a Bronze Age formation of the ASI comes from our analysis of Austroasiatic-speaking groups in India such as Juang, who have a higher ratio of AASI-to-Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry than the ASI (Fig. 3, Supplementary Materials). Austroasiatic speakers likely descend from populations that arrived in South Asia in the 3 rd millennium BCE (based on hill cultivation systems associated with the spread of Austroasiatic languages (20)), and our genetic results show that when Austroasiatic speakers arrived they mixed with groups with elevated ratios of AASI- to Iranian-agriculturalist-related ancestry than are found in the ASI, showing that the ASI had not yet overspread peninsular India.

And Razib Khan (january 18, 2018), The Dravidianization of India:

The reason that the ratio of Iran_N to Steppe_EMBA does not decline monotonically as one goes from west to east along North Indian plain is that Indo-Aryans were not expanding into a Dravidian India. Dravidian India was expanding only somewhat ahead of Indo-Aryan India, and in some places not all at all.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Narasimhan et al. are ambivalent about the linguistic connections:

A parsimonious hypothesis is that as Steppe_MLBA groups moved south and mixed with Indus_Periphery-related groups at the end of the IVC to form the ANI, other Indus_Periphery-related groups moved further south and east to mix with AASI groups in peninsular India to form the ASI. This is consistent with suggestions that the spread of the IVC was responsible for dispersing Dravidian languages (42-44), although scenarios in which Dravidian languages derive from pre-Indus languages of peninsular India are also entirely plausible as ASI ancestry is mostly derived from the AASI.

I don't doubt that agriculture spread from the IVC. The "tale of two continents" map shows it spreading between 3500 BC and 2000 BC. But this is an impressionistic map. The spreading is most likely to have happened by sea when the IVC was its peak and they had plenty of ships. The farmers would have settled in the coastal regions first and gradually spread inward.

But the problem is in the assumption that this spreading carried with it a language which replaced the earlier language of South India. If that is so, then how would you explain isolated tribal Dravidian languages in the midst of Indo-Aryan regions? Why would the forest-dwelling tribes come down to learn the Dravidian language of the agriculturists, but then refuse to learn an Indo-Aryan language afterwards? A more reasonable hypothesis is that they were speaking Dravidian languages from the beginning (whatever the "beginning" might be).

The agriculturists could have added a layer to the Dravidian language, as i mentioned earlier. I would hazard a guess that the anna language is what got added by the agriculturists (whom I call "Mesopotamians" rather than "Iranians") whereas the thambi language is the older one (a reasonable guess based on the fact that anna means elder brother and thambi means younger brother.) Moreover, this layering could have happened within the IVC itself, before it got carried to South India. All said and done, I guess I am claiming "indigeneous Dravidians". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And the recent phylogenic study says:

We find the general congruence across models on a median root age for the Dravidian language family of around 4000–4500 years ago including similar 95% HDP ranges supportive of a positive evaluation of the dating results. Nevertheless, the uncertainty on the root age is large, especially for the best-fitting analyses featuring a relaxed clock. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the root of the Dravidian language family is 6000 or 6500 years old.

-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Unsubstantiated and spurious accusations like this are to the detriment of this spirit. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 00:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't born yesterday. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. Vanamonde ( talk) 04:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Slavery in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Kautilya3. Recently this page showed up at WP:RFPP, where User:Dlohcierekim applied two days of semiprotection. Since I see your name in the history, I wonder if you have an opinion on what to do. There is some kind of revert war about tens of thousands of bytes of text, which goes back and forth. Do you think the article would benefit from an WP:RFC? Then we would at least know what the fight was about :-). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, all that content was only recently added by a POV-pushing editor that got blocked as a sock. There is no harm if it goes. I intend to work on the article during the summer, and, if anything can be salvaged from his content, I will. Meanwhile, any registered user can reinstate it and take ownership, as per policy. But they need to know the sources and they need to be available to answer questions when they come up. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This article may be of interest to you: Damgaard et al. (2018), The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. The archeological supplements contain a wealth of information! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Good work bandhu. From what I have seen so far, you are doing a great work here keeping a cool head. Some of the comments are funny too. :) Thanks and keep it up. DBig Xray 13:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DBigXray. I am surprised we didn't run into each other till now! Hope to see you around more. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Mea Culpa. I had a very long hiatus and just returned recently. Yes, Hope so. -- DBig Xray 14:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Your addition to Hemant Karkare has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:President's Call to Service Award. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Riot shield. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya you have reverted my recent edits but none of the sources mentioned in the article state "India and Pakistan claimed victory" , can you check and confirm All books mention India won the war Janwar jibba ( talk) 00:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Janwar_Jibba

Note that you have made the edit on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. But that article merely lists the information about various conflicts which have their own pages. In this particular case, you need to consult Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and check the citations given there. All the result fields have been decided after extensive discussion. So, please check the talk page as well, to see the various viewpoints expressed. You cannot change these fields unilaterally. You need to generate WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Should Hindavi Swarajya really be a separate article? Can you think of a suitable merge + redirect target? Vanamonde ( talk) 07:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I was indeed surprised to find a page on it. However, after some digging, I think there might be enough material on it to write a short article. The debates that we had at Talk:Shivaji (which I transcluded to Talk:Hindavi Swarajya) are an indication of that. If Ms Sarah Welch were here, she could have accomplished these things with relative ease. I am not as good.

The fact that Tilak and Gandhi found inspiration from the term makes it significant. Here are a couple of books that deal with the matter in detail:

• Laine, James W. (2003), Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India, Oxford University Press, ISBN  978-0-19-514126-9
• Shivaji and swarajya, Orient Longman, for Indian Institute of Public Administration. Maharashtra Regional Branch, 1975

Of one thing, you can rest assured: Hindavi never meant "Hindu". But many scholars are mistaken about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's very far out of my area of comfort, so I'm not going to try to fix it, but I'll hold off redirecting for now, perhaps. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, I know you're not one of the nominators for the Shivaji GAN, but can I ask you to watchlist the review? Vanamonde ( talk) 10:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

See pp.189-190 of this book

• Bénéï, Véronique (2008), Schooling Passions: Nation, History, and Language in Contemporary Western India, Stanford University Press, ISBN  978-0-8047-5906-9

to see what it all means for us today. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I think you are trying to behave like a boss in your responses. You need not do it, I understand content dispute. Saying that you can get me sanctioned has happened on article talk page earlier, you bring up arbipa several times. Please understand I have read it and it is disruptive to keep talking in threatening tone. So, please keep away from my talk page if you want to offer only one more threat. I have a way of thinking, grasping things, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you believe there is a policy violation, though I do not want to, you may bring it to the attention of arbipa, you do not have to offer more chastising. Most of the exchange we had was about content on my talk page hence I copied it to article talk page. Please trim it as you deem fit, but please do not revert it in bulk, that is not acceptable to me, my response are not in isolation, they need the questions that you raise hence I can not surgically remove your entire response. Find something agreeable and hit revert button less, let me know and I can always make such edits myself. With this kind of interaction, no wonder, there are very few new editors embrace editing. Gian ( talk) 12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Not sure of the background here but just for clarification, Gbohoadgwwian, it is a requirement of ArbCom that people are formally alerted to those sanctions before any action can be taken under them, even if they already know of them. Receiving the alert is not itself a threat, just a piece of bureaucracy. The alert has to be issued once every twelve months, assuming the contributor is still editing in the topic area. Consider it an advisory notice for your own good as well as that of the project. - Sitush ( talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I get that the bureaucracy is itself detrimental in a way for new users. I have said earlier too to Kautilya3 to not lace responses with ARBIPA. I hope he does not need to comment in that way for 12 months then. -- Gian ( talk) 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Gian, when I posted the ARBIPA reminder on your talk page, I believed I already had enough evidence to take you to WP:ARE. Posting a reminder on your talk page was a way of giving you another chance. Please take it seriously.

As for copying things to the article talk page, you need to keep in mind that your talk page and the article talk page have different purposes, and that copying my posts from one place to another requires my permission, unless it is a straightforward non-controversial act. Copying your own posts is perfectly fine.

On the bigger issues being debated about, I need you to focus on the sources and what they say. You need to follow up on the sources mentioned to you, and you need to provide your sources and the relevant content in return. That is how content discussions proceed. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude has been very aggressive. I understand about the article talk page and user talk page, I also like to keep discussion at one place, please summarize them the way you want, but completely vaporizing them is not good in my view. I consider this response also set in aggressive tone, here is my view on this, in equal strong way, honest opinion of mine: I believe I have understood the arbipa rules and few other policies in earnest, you are free to bring this discussion up at wp:are directly if you consider it suitable, but do not bring the threatening tone in content discussion or on my page again, it is unhelpful and only increasing distrust. -- Gian ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me repeatedly. Get involved if you are part of the edits and issues. There are wiki guidelines on anti-stalking. 202.156.182.84 ( talk) 06:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bipartisan Report. Legobot ( talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Hindu_politics#Rename_this_to_Hindutva_politics?. Appreciate your kind thoughts DBig Xray 07:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you reverted the edits I made though I don't understand the reason why. The source I removed had been deleted so I removed it from the page as the information in the page became baseless. Also, speech marks were added to improve the accuracy of the article as "terrorist" is a politically subjective word but I'm glad you had no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The most serious issue, as I mentioned in the edit summary, is that you removed a source without any explanation.
• Labelling sources as "Indian media" is necessary only when other media disagreed. You haven't said whether that was the case.
• Finally putting "terrorist" is quote marks is counterproductive, especially in the lead sentence where no source was cited at all. If you don't think the "terrorist" label is appropriate, please open a talk page discussion and cite your sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) In addition WP:DEADLINK is no excuse to remove sources from the article. Read more WP:LINKROT-- DBig Xray 14:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not a dead link either. I just looked it up. So I am not sure what the OP means by "it has been deleted". Deleted from where? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My bad, the link was actually link number 14: /info/en/?search=2016_Pathankot_attack#cite_note-14 I don't dispute your other points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Then change the country to "Pakistan Occupied/Administered" Kashmir. Why have you changed it to Pakistan then? Please don't threaten to block me. We are 1.25 Billion strong. How many you will block? Swastikm ( talk) 04:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

hi, How is the current status of this article. I saw you making few reverts in past. Is the current version sufficiently sourced ? if you had already done some work and could summarize, i could start from there. thanks a lot. -- DBig Xray 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi DBig, no, I haven't done any work on this article except to add some sources in the Further reading section. I did add content to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which you can probably copy into here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you might also take content from User:Kautilya3/sandbox/History_of_the_RSS, but I think most of it might have been already copied into the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page (by an editor named Sasank Karri). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, np I will start validating everything then. Thank you-- DBig Xray 19:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diamond and Silk. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of taking Template:Hindu politics to TfD: it's a completely incoherent set of links. Then, I realized the article it's based on, Hindu politics, is even worse. Unfortunately, any effort to blow it up and start over is unlikely to be successful, so it has to be cleaned up. I was thinking of taking a shot at it, and to begin by renaming it to Hinduism in politics. Thoughts on this? Also, would you be able to help? I'd appreciate it if you could. Fowler&fowler, do you have any opinions on this? Vanamonde ( talk) 07:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• ( talk page stalker) As mentioned in the talk page, I support a TfD as a pure WP:OR. There is no source, other then some recent attempts to hijack Indian history by the Right wing Fringe theorists of Indian media, So even if you spend hours finding sources, the only non RS sources you will get will be from WP:FRINGE. It is not an uncommon sight in India to see misapproprition of Swamy Vivekananda in Posters of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh e.g. [2] [3] -- DBig Xray 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I read further, and the page is terrible, so I've gone and boldly draftified it. It's at User:Vanamonde93/sandbox/Hinduism in politics; input would be appreciated. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, Vivekananda gets plenty of coverage in RS [4]. One of the problems we face perennially is the distinction between religion and identity. 99% of the scholars (at least the western ones) don't recognize any difference between the two. But for the majority of its existence, Hinduism was only a religion, not an identity. The term "Hindu politics" seems to fuse religion and identity again, whereas "Hinduism in politics" might highlight the religion aspect of it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I know that Vivekananda gets lot of mentions and deservedly so. His teaching and views were entirely different from proponents of Hindutva ( as said here). Hindutva and Hindusim are not synonyms and any article or Template trying to join these vastly different ideas deserve to be trashed. -- DBig Xray 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, please do click on the link I gave. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did some digging after the last controversy erupted, and concluded that there is no coherent idea of "Hindu politics" in the literature. So, anything we do would be synthesis. It is best to salt the article as well as the template. The redirect to Hindu nationalism is the right thing to do. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, TfD it is: discussion here. I'll work on the userspace draft, which may be salvageable: again, input is welcome. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• K, just a reminder about the TfD discussion, since you have yet to comment there. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Football Lads Alliance. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. There's an interesting article, Poznik et al. (2016), Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences. At page 19 is a tabel with a dating of rapid growth os R1b-L11 in Europe; and H1-M52, R1a-Z93, and L1-M11 in India. The authors calculated ith 30 years oer generation, which resulted in an outburst of R1a 5300 YBP / 2300 BCE, that is, during the IVC. Food for the indigenists! (Surprisingly, they didn't pick it up; but let's wait and see) Or... 30 years per generation is waaaaaay too long. I did a recalculation, setting the outburst of H1-M52 at 2200 BCE (what else? The IVC was huge, or there must have been an unknown civilisation in India preceding the IVC), and then it fits quite nicely: R1a-Z93 starts to grow at 1500 BCE, and shows a second, prolonged outburst at 1000-700 BCE, that is, the Kuru Kingdom. Interestingly, L1-M11, south IVC/ASI, also starts to grow at 900 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no, one indigenist picked it up: A.L. Chavda (2017), Propagandizing the Aryan Invasion Debate: A Rebuttal to Tony Joseph:

After approximately 5,000 BCE, the monsoon started declining monotonically. This gradually weakened the Sarasvati, which eventually dried out to a large extent around 1,500 BCE. The Harappan civilization thus gradually deurbanized due to declining monsoons, and its inhabitants migrated both eastward as well as westward, which is a logical and plausible explanation for the “striking expansions within R1a-Z93” that occurred approximately 4,000 – 4,500 years ago per [5].

Zeng et al. (2018), Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck, also refer to Poznik (2016).

The sex-bias has also been noted by others:

• Goldberg et al. (2016/2017),

• Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes (BioRvx)
• Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations (PNAS)

• Batini et al. (2017), Population resequencing of European mitochondrial genomes highlights sex-bias in Bronze Age demographic expansions

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And here's another one who picked-up a clue from Underhill (2015):

Dr. Peter Underhill's 2015 paper has already found 'the geographic distribution of R1a-M780' might reflect 'early urbanization within the Indus Valley'.

I noticed this myself too, and puzzled over it: could R1a have come to India via Iran? Or... is the dating simply incorrect; you remember, the chicken-argument and the problem of how long one generation lasts. But see Haplogroup R1a#Transcaucasia & West Asian origins and possible influence on Indus Valley Civilisation, note 8 & note 9. Those indigemists never seem to dig deep; they shop short when they find pyrite. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California Proposition 187. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya, I recently reverted an edit by a POV warrior at Maratha–Mysore War and then realized that I wasn't confident that the version I reverted to was correct either. The linked sources that I was able to look up treat the subject perfunctorily, and I cannot research better sources right at this moment. So I thought I'd take the easy way out and drop you a note since you may now the answer offhand or have sources handy!

By the way, nice to see you around and active. Hope you are doing well here and in real life. Abecedare ( talk) 08:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abe, It is great to hear from you. Looks like you are still busy with RL. I don't know much about this topic. Pinging Utcursch to see if he does. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Realized that the book by Sailendra Nath Sen, already cited in the article, does have some useful information about the war. Will use it to clean up the article, once I have had the chance to do due diligence and can devote an hour or two to it (perhaps this weekend). Will re-ping you if I run into any problems. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

[5] It would be amusing, if such folks were any less serious in their threats. Vanamonde ( talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. 26 April. I guess I was working late nights at that time and probably robbed them off the few hours of cheap thrills they might have had otherwise. They are welcome to come and talk if they have a case. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a confusion between Sanskrit Mythology and history. So please do not share your mythological believes in in anthropological, Historical and archaeological facts. Please read all the back references

• Bouckaert et al., Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family, Science, 24 August 2012.

and understand how the western and north Indian historian has used mythological stories to describe Indian history. This publication and few more in the recent past has opened eye about the mythology and origin of Sanskrit in Middle eastern along with other Indo-European languages. Especially since Sanskrit language did not have a script till 14th century, rest of the history is obvious. It is not extrapolated please read the following papers and understand the truth.

For Sanskrit origin

• Damgaard et al. 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes, Nature, 9 May 2018.
• Perdih, Anton. "Continuity of European Languages from the Point of View of DNA Genealogy." Int'l J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 6 (2018): 18.
• Piazza, Alberto, et al. "Genetics and the origin of European languages." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92.13 (1995): 5836-5840.
• Joyce, A Turkish origin for Indo-European languages, Nature news, 23 August 2012
• Sanskrit to Swedish, they all came from Turkey, Hindustan Times (apparently reprinted from New York Times), 25 August 2012
• Sanskrit to Swedish, they all came from Turkey, The Times of India, 24 August 2012.

For Tamil language in Indian subcontinent

• Keezhadi excavation leads to ancient civilisation on the banks of Vaigai, The Hindu, 16 May 2017.
• "Horizontal Excavation: Excavation of Towns and Fortifications.", National Mission on Education through ICT.
• Carbon Dating Confirms Keezhadi Site Is From Sangam Era, India Mystery 29 July 2017.
• Sanyal, Sanjeev. The Ocean of Churn: How the Indian Ocean Shaped Human History. Penguin UK, 2016.
• Manigandan, T., et al. "Tamil character recognition from ancient epigraphical inscription using OCR and NLP." 2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing (ICECDS). IEEE, 2017.
• Ravisankar, R., et al. "Determination of firing temperature of some ancient potteries of Tamil Nadu, India by FT-IR Spectroscopic technique." Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3.9 (2010): 1016-1019.
• Achyuthan, Hema, et al. "Radiocarbon ages of pedogenic carbonate nodules from Coimbatore region, Tamil Nadu." Journal of the Geological Society of India 75.6 (2010): 791-798.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaduraiSelvam ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MaduraiSelvam, welcome to Wikipedia!

I don't know what mythology you are talking about, but you can rest assured that I don't believe in any mythologies.

The kind of material you are producing above can affect the articles Indo-European migrations, Indo-European languages, Indo-Aryan migrations, and Indo-Aryan languages. Some of this material may need to be summarised in the Sanskrit article. I have requested Joshua Jonathan to look into it. Please be patient.

On the other hand, some of your sources above are pointing to an Anatolian origin of Indo-European languages, which is interesting. We will need time to study them and figure out how to incorporate them into the existing articles. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ MaduraiSelvam: Kautilya3 is not the kind op person to believe in mythologies; on the contrary. The studies you're referring to regarding the origins of Sanskrit are well-known here, and included in other Wikipedia articles. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All the information about Sanskrit is based on Vedic mythological verses that brought Varna system (caste system) was written only during 14th century AD. Information said about Sanskrit in any pages of Wikipedia are political propaganda of the people promoting that Language as older. Till now there is no Archeological record of Sanskrit in Indian subcontinent on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaduraiSelvam ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliably sourced information on Wikipedia which completely contradict your claims. If you go around pushing your personal beliefs here, you are not going to get anywhere. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my changes to the aforementioned article which were editing the article to removing the use of "terrorism" to describe the attack. I would just like to state for the record that I do indeed condemn the attack and regard it as a barbaric act of violence. However, as you know already, Wikipedia does not function on emotions regardless of how morally justified they may seem.

It was therefore my reasoning to edit the article to remove wording that was emotionally input into the article and that does not adhere to Wikipedia's editorial standards. I again cite my reasoning being that "terrorism" and "terrorist" are political words and argue that the provision of "reliable" sources is not balanced to equally represent the "other side" of the issue, namely the reporting done by media organisations that offer an alternative but equally reliable point of view. If we take a look at the "Due and undue weight" section of WP:NOV we see that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I would like to point out how WP:FALSEBALANCE is not relevant here as the opposition to the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" is not a minority view, extraordinary claim nor is the acceptance of the use of "terrorism" or "terrorist" accepted in mainstream scholarship, rather the opposite.

WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:BALANCE are also important as many of the sources provided (even apart from the Indian ones) are biased against one of the accused parties (Pakistan) such as some of the Western media outlets. This can be discussed for each outlet if need be though from a neutral and logical point of view, this goes without saying given the contentious geopolitics involving Pakistan and some Western countries. I also highly disagree with the use of citing think tanks, for example the Lowy Institute. As you will understand, think tanks are not reliable or credible sources of information and regardless of the validity of their claims of being independent, they many a time present one sided views. On Wikipedia, their credibility is certainly in question as can be witnessed here: /info/en/?search=Talk%3AThink_tank#Think_tank_trust/credibility

Speaking of bias, if we take a look at the "Bias in sources" section of WP:NPOV, we can see that "However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." I therefore am not saying that biased sources should be completely removed from the page (though as you see, it is recommended to exclude this material altogether which can be done in this case as plenty of material from other sources is available) but that it should be balanced proportionally which is not the case in this Wikipedia article.

It is important to compare this article to one on a very similar incident, the 2016 Uri attack. On that article, the attack type is listed as "insurgency, guerrilla warfare" and the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" is largely limited to use in quotes by various media outlets though it must be said that that article suffers from the same error of editors accidentally or purposefully using media outlets such as BBC news to justify the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" to describe the incident and perpetrators respectively even though the cited article does not use either words and instead opts for using the terms "attack" and "attacker".

As you recommended, I did vist the talk page but this issue has already been discussed before though the discussion did not reach a conclusion and could be deemed as failed ( WP:PROPOSAL). Deducting from the discussion, however, I am firmly of the position that the argument against using "terror" and "terrorism" and instead opting for more neutral language was far more compelling and reasoned than the counter argument.

Finally, the UN definition of terrorism is: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

As can be seen from the above definition, it can be argued that this attack was not an act of terror though that is understandably debatable. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs)

The Reuters write-up had this:

Pakistan condemned the attack and said it wanted to build on the goodwill created in the recent high-level contacts. "Pakistan remains committed to partner with India as well as other countries in the region to completely eradicate the menace of terrorism," foreign ministry spokesperson Qazi Khalilullah tweeted. TV footage showed armed guards outside the base, which is located 50 km (30 miles) from the border with Pakistan, and police stepped up vehicle checks in the area.

Pakistan cannot always be credited with plainspeak, but in this case they did.

I would invite you to start changing all the terror attacks inside Pakistan such as 2016 Quetta police training college attack to "insurgent attacks" or "militant attacks" or whatever, before you start working on India pages. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for systematically replying to each one of my points and offering me a response that doesn't emanate emotional distress. I would instead invite you to start editing all articles to ensure that they meet the editorial standards of Wikipedia that you have asked me a few times before to become familiar with. Afterall, it would justify the privileged position you have been given by the Wikimedia organisation as part of Wiki Project India. It is not wise nor academic to resort to "whataboutism" so you should focus on the issue presented at hand. I'll also bring to your attention how the 2016 Quetta police training college attack uses "militants" as well as "terrorist" and the attack type is not listed as something so vague and political as "terrorism" which already is far more neutral than articles I've seen about "terror" attacks in India. Admittedly, the 2016 Quetta police training college attack article among all others relating to "terrorist" attacks could still be more neutral but we'll work one at a time.So I ask you again, what justification was there to revert my edits? Can you disprove the arguments I've presented?

Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gangadesh, all of them are terrorist attacks as far as I am concerned. Attacks on civilians and non-combatant military personnel (by which I mean "when they are not playing a combat role") are terrorist attacks. WP:LABEL asks us to be careful about labelling individuals as terrorists. You will see me rejecting edits labelling Burhan Wani or Yasin Malik, for example, as terrorists. But the members of recognised terrorist organisations, LeT, JeM, LeJ etc., when they carry out attacks, especially suicide attacks, they will get labelled as terrorists, assuming reliable sources do so. The days of munching words about them are over. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this reponse. I appreciate the consistency in your standards when dealing with an understandably contentious issue. I did indeed look over WP:LABEL and should have mentioned it in my original comment. Referencing this, however, may not be justified as the sources cited in the Pathankot attack article did not use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" except to quote individuals who deemed it an act of terror. Individuals are not a credible source of information due to bias derived from personal beliefs e.g political and religious. These miscited sources include BBC news and the New York Times which you can check for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I need you to look at the Kulbhushan Jadhav page where a very important piece of information is under threat. Is it vandalism/edit warring, not sure. The report by the U.N needs to be told in the article. I'm new on Wikipedia so request you to please look into it asap. Thank you. Adding The Truth ( talk) 15:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with WBG there. He is an experienced editor. I suggest you listen to him. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the U.N report which came a few days after this incident isn't relevant when the U.N said that the civilians should not be tried in military courts when Kulbhushan Jadhav was infact tried in a military court? I think this criticism by the U.N is very important and needs to be in the article. Adding The Truth ( talk) 09:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot keep on arguing "I think...". Wikipedia is developed by WP:CONSENSUS.

You need reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources that establish what you claim. But you don't have them. So, you need to drop the stick and move on. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear "I think..." was used as in 'I believe' or "It should be this way" or 'Something isn't right and needs to be made right'. That sorta stuff. Well, we can agree to disagree. Adding The Truth ( talk) 09:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You are really so focused on pushing your own point of view that you are not listening to what the other people are telling you, or reading the Wikipedia policies which govern how Wikipedia works. If you continue to proceed in this way, you will get sanctioned or sooner or later. So focus on sources please, and stop arguing. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waterboarding. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency). Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microaggression. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya,

Could you please look into this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hinduism&diff=851304870&oldid=851301762&diffmode=source

The edit was reverted for mysterious claims. The editor claims its redundant and its already covered in the lead, but I don't think it is covered in the article and yet the edit was reverted.

Need your assistance. Onkuchia ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead includes "following the Vedic period", which covers everything that you were adding as necessary per WP:LEAD. Capitals00 ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What's more, the article also says:

Indologist Alexis Sanderson also argues that, before the arrival of Islam in India, there was no Indian term which corresponds to "Hinduism". According to Indologist Alexis Sanderson, "Sanskrit sources differentiated Vaidika, Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, Saura, Buddhist, and Jaina traditions, but they had no name that denotes the first five of these as a collective entity over and against Buddhism and Jainism."[99]

It's quite obvious that Hinduism is far more than just the 'Vedic dharma'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've copied this tread to Talk:Hinduism#Vaidika dharma; let's continue there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Swann. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Came across these two sources (MSW had cited them at Sanskrit; have read only few excerpts on Google Books), which I thought relevant to the question you raised at Talk:Hinduism. I realize your question was rhetorical and concerned Vedas rather than Sanskrit but thought you'd enjoy the refs in any case. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, if you are trying to suggest that the Vedic religion is perceived as the mother of Hinduism, you are probably right. Like my grandfather used to say, "it is all written in the Vedas". Like a good child, I asked the obvious, "how do you know what is written in the Vedas?". No answer. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The third chapter of Pandey's book discusses how the Indian immigrant community in Kingsville, Texas, consisting mostly of high-income professionals, set up a Sunday school to teach their children (rudimentary) Sanskrit. The author discusses how the language served as a bridge language for the community-members who otherwise had different native tongues (they could agree that Sanskrit was "the root-language" and therefore acceptable to all), and how this adoption of Sanskrit as an identity-marker did not depend upon actual proficiency in the language.

In fact, Sanskrit functioned less as a target language and more as the subject and object of cultural identity. Not many were able to read Sanskrit texts in the Devanagari script even after attending the school for some years... [skipping several pages] ... it was a resource that immigrants could identify as historically theirs that would pose no threat to any one language in use. Sanskrit was literally labeled as the source language of many other languages in actual use and was revered by all. Since Sanskrit was identified as something that preceded the present-day differences, it became a heritage marker rather than just a language, and thus a unifier of all who identified with the dominant South Asian faith and cultural tradition.

My contention is that, for many, the Vedas serve a similar function.

I'll stop before this gets too forum-y; although if/when appropriate sources are found it may be useful somewhere on wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3: You suggested, "we need to state something about what aspects of the Veda are adhered to in Hinduism." The short incomplete answer: rites-of-passage, ritual grammar and such. For example, the both Rigveda (X.14-18, X.56) and Atharvaveda (XVIII.1-4) cover the cremation ceremony, while the wedding hymns in X.85 of the Rigveda and those in Atharvaveda have been the template for wedding ceremony, etc. There is more. Of course, the Vedas have much that is now vestigial, extinct, or has evolved. I am reflecting on if (and how) this belongs in the article though. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, you are right of course. But I think Abecedare had it right when he noted that Vaidika is used in an identity-formation way. For me, the "Hindu" identity is perfectly good enough. The "Vedic" identity is wrong and misleading. This is basically the 'Arya Samaj' view of Hinduism, whose time is gone. We don't want it back. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Arya Samaj / Brahmo Samaj / etc views need to be mentioned and then clarified with opposing views, for NPOV and with peer-reviewed scholarly sources. I have done so with note 12, which you are welcome to revise / trim / expand. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

hey can you please participate with me in promoting this article  to a  "good article" .One reviewer has suggested the section  congress as a mass movement needs to be better composed .Can you please do that? .I've  already done all of his other suggestions.Hope you react positively.Thanks. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 02:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Gaza border protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Khalistan movement. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. About my link edit.. Gujar tribe or Gurjar tribe are same as Gurjara tribe.. so i linked the same in gurjaradesa page. Gewingewin ( talk) 08:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. All the people of Gurjaradesa were "Gurjaras", according to historical sources. The modern day "Gurjars" are only a small part of the erstwhile populations. Vast numbers of tribal populations settled down to agriculture and adopted the Hindu social norms in late 1st millennium AD, i.e., became Brahmins, Kshatriyas and so on. There is loads of discussion on this issue on the Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara page.

By consensus, Gurjara points back to the Gurjaradesa page, and Gurjar is the page on the present day ethnic group. You should not change these things without solid sources and prior discussion. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

to chime in at WP:AN#Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill.You were quite involved (as far as I recall) in the Faizan-mess and may wish to see THill's assertions over the thread.Best, ∯WBG ^converse 12:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You will need to participate at DRN. No more edit wars please, either by you or any supporters. Warm regards, Dilpa kaur ( talk) 03:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill (copied from User talk:Towns Hill#Faizan), Towns Hill claims that he was recruited by you for editing purposes. You may wish to comment on this, as - given the turbulent nature of the whole Kashmir topic area - it's undoubtedly going to lead to some investigation. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 13:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, an investigation will be a great idea! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, before doing so, a couple of simple questions: did you or did you not approach Towns Hill to make edits (either specifically or generally) to the Kashmir topic area (or anywhere else, come to that)? What was the extent (content is not required) of your off-wiki communications with this user? Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(You are, incidentally, welcome to email me if you would rather answer these questions off-wiki). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Yunshui:, Anybody familiar with the Kashmir topic area would think this is a big joke! We were almost always ranged on opposite sides. It would hardly make sense for me to ask him to make any edits.

The only communications that I had with Towns Hill, as far as I recall, are when he was about to face a block topic ban at the WP:ARE [6]. I warned him about the situation and sent him some advice on what he could do to escape the mishap. He neither replied to me nor followed my advice. That was the end of that. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this, since it now appears that he has sent evidence to the contrary to other users as well... I don't plan on taking any action without more convincing proof, but for the record, you are claiming that you did not send emails to Towns Hill (or their socks) in January 2017 and May 2016? Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yun shui, January 2017 was indeed the period of the ARE case I mentioned above. May 2016 was also of a similar kind. I am pasting my advice to him from May 2016:

From: Kautilya3 <...>

To: Kautilya3 <...>

Subject: Copy of your message to Towns Hill: Please don't quit

Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:48:36 +0000

Hi <...>, Please don't quit. You have plenty of support, and there is a good chance you can get the sanction reduced.

But you would need to show that you understand what you did wrong. (Ignore advice from all the edit-warriors. They will only get you into more trouble.)

Make sure that you address the points Ed Johnston raised: prior warning, page just coming off full-protection, RfC going on. You need to show understanding of these issues for other admins to become sympathetic. Saying that other people were more wrong won't get you anywhere.

A better strategy might be to propose your own proposals, such as you will abide by 1RR or that you will follow WP:BRD.

All the best. Kautilya

This must have been a reaction to his post here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting - the email that he forwarded to me from the same date started the same - then the syntax changed and "you" started advising him as to which sources to use and what to edit to further "your" position. I think it's fairly obvious that he's editing your emails fairly heavily before forwarding them. Don't worry; I'll be ignoring anything else he sends. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I and Yunshui have been forwarded this canvassing email, originally sent by Kautilya3 to Towns Hill, dated to January 4 2017.

This email was Kautilya3 trying to canvass Towns Hill to fight against Fowler&fowler when Kautilya3 ran into a content dispute with Fowler&fowler in early January 2017 about "foreign rule" and "Kashmiri identity" here [7]

Subject: Kashmir

Hi Towns Hill, the real battle is in the "foreign rule" section. This is where the "Kashmiri identity" has to be fought. You can concede other nitpicking, but I look forward to your help in fighting this section.

Cheers,

Kautilya3

I think this was very cleverly worded, but the intent is obviously against our policies. Not only do I see WP:MEAT in this email, but WP:BATTLE attitude too. Do you deny sending this canvassing email? I don't think this email is forged or modified. I have been given screenshots of the original message. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 10:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. So, Towns Hill is sending you information about what emails he has received from me? Why exactly is he doing so? How do you know Towns Hill, or how does he know you? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Did you or did you not send this email? Dilpa kaur ( talk) 11:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you get the first call. I will have to think about to recollect the context of this message, which I will do later in the evening. But, after that, I will be expecting an answer to my questions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The words above are mine, but I have no recollection of sending the message. It must have been done at the heat of the moment, which I subsequently forgot about because neither he nor I followed up.

The context seems to be as follows. Towns Hill started editing the Kashmir page, starting around 6 December 2016. Prior to this, he made extensive edits to Kashmiris, starting around 2 November 2016 and I presume he was trying to bring some of that content over to this page.

As I mentioned on the talk page, "Towns Hill has been adding a large amount of material lately. I cam over to review it and, if possible, clean it." The creation of the "Foreign rule" section was part of such "cleaning" and it was tentative, as I explained. I also stated that it was based on a suggestion of Wasiq 9320 at Talk:Kashmiris. So, I was more the messenger than the creator. When the labelling was disputed, I rather expected that Wasiq and Towns Hill would pick up the tab and argue their case. Instead, I was left to defend it on my own. That would have been my reason for prodding him.

Towns Hill now wants to claim that that little message constitutes "recruiting" him? As claimed, "I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry...", which is clearly a wild hallucination. The time line shows that he had been adding tens of thousands of bytes of content to Kashmir pages of his own accord before I said anything to him. Does this post sound like what my "meatpuppet" would say?

The record shows that I generally liked him. I liked him because he brought quality sources and worked very hard to produce an enormous amount of content, not all of which was perfect, but was generally very good and educational. I tried to support him and defend him almost till the day he got blocked. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European political party. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to create an article on Maha-Govinda the ancient Indian Urban Planner.

Source:"Buddhist India" by TWR David.

Varcin2 (
talk) 15:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if this is okay to be asked, but since you participated in this, would you mind leaving your comment on this one, too?
Thanks in advance.
— Rye-96 ( talk) 17:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rye-96, I don't know the policies of Wikimedia Commons that well. So I will stay out. Thanks for informing me. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I don’t see why it has to be so different, though.
— Rye-96 ( talk) 19:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Telugu system of persons naming is very different from rest of india. The surnames of telugu people are ancestral village names and r referred as housenames and gotras...Musunuri housename and gotra is present in only Kamma caste. Pemmasani Nayakas of Gandikota referred themselves in an inscription as kammas. There gotra is musunuri and according to many Telugu historians they r descendants of musunuri nayakas....Bsl hanumantha rao, Mallampalli somasekhara sharma, etukuri balaram murthy, d. Prasad etc brahmin scholars outrightly proven musunuris r kammas....they r very prominent historians...no body knows about m. Rama rao.....reddy is not a caste and a title till today used by nearly 20 telugu castes....there is no inscriptional evidence to say the caste of reddy dynasty as reddy is just a title those days.....kapaya is assisted by 75 subordinate nayakas among them vema reddy is famous this is clearly mentioned in Anithalli inscription of rajamundry reddy dynasty clan.....Ikshvaku veera purusha dattha inscription of Kamma Rashtra is located in Krishna district so kammanadu s not just confined to guntur.....There is a inscription of kapaya in guntur district..... He ruled the same territory equally of kakatiya ganapathi deva as quoted by famous historian mallampalli Tostmonl ( talk) 09:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tostmonl, please feel free to write your responses on the article talk page.

The paper of M. Rama Rao that I mentioned was published in Indian History Congress, which is a reliable venue, and a lot better than a book published by P.G. Publishers, Guntur. We need sources published in national or international venues. The more eyes that have scrutinised the source, the more reliable it is. Please see WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, can you take a look at this one too? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Lillinan1 ( talk · contribs) made a lot of page moves before being blocked as a sock. Given the sock farm surrounding Rajesh rao kumar ( talk · contribs), I'm pretty sure that at least some of them will be pov moves relating to the Nayaka name etc but I don't have the stamina to delve into them. Do you? - Sitush ( talk) 12:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Hi Sitush, most were already reverted, and I took care of the remaining ones. Get well soon! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Guerrilla warfare. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 please develop articles of different sub schools of Vedanta and their founders Vishishtadvaita ( Ramanuja), Dvaita Vedanta ( Madhvacharya), Bhedabheda Dvaitadvaita ( Nimbarka), Achintya Bheda Abheda ( Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), Shuddhadvaita ( Vallabha). Most of the articles are written poorly with ill-sourced since you guys are expert in Hindu-related article I request you to develop these articles (no hurry take your time). Please help @ Ms Sarah Welch:--.-- 223.223.140.102 ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Australia. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

hi KT, per WP:TPO I think you have a choice to completely remove the text [8] instead of striking it. since the conditions are met. If you feel that a line doesnt help the discussion you can verywell choose to remove it completely or replace with a better link, until no one has replied/pointed to it. cheers. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of Brazil. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nabil Gabol. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV, this has been contradicted in the same source, and plenty of other sources." Historical sources are sources and one needs to include it as well. Why did you delete the Greek historical account from the introduction? Want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercuryjo ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You have cited Upinder Singh's book. But it is pretty obvious that you haven't actually seen the book, nor made an effort to summarise it from a neutral point of view. WP:SAYWHERE you have actually seen the content that you have added. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 06:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty condescending of you to say that I haven't read the source to say the least. Show some minimum courtesy. Is this "But it is pretty obvious that you haven't actually seen the book" the way to have a scholarly debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercuryjo ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to Kautilya for interrupting, I will go one better, please provide a quote from A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century on page 205 that supports the sentence;

• "The Greek historian Arrian wrote in his Indika, that Megasthenes describes that all Indians were free and no one was a slave. He further stated that the Lakedaemonians hold Helots as slaves who do servile labour, however the Indians do not use aliens as slaves, much less a countryman of their own."

Sound good? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Kautilya3, Who are you to decide Megasthenes is not a reliable source? Quote me a single eminent historian positing such an argument. Mercuryjo ( talk) 01:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty condescending of you to ignore my request. Such action can be considered disruptive. Anyway, as for Kautilya's comment, see here. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Upinder Singh (whom you have cited without ever looking at it), has a detailed discussion of the sources in Chapter 7. Kautilya's Artashastra, Megasthenes' Indica, and Ashoka inscriptions. She also gives a box on p.325, where she reproduces what other Greek historians have said about Megasthenes. In particular, she quotes Strabo:

Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars —Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. (Emphasis added)

Kautilya, my famous ancestor, has an entire chapter on slavery in his Arthashastra. Have you read it?

All edits on Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. It is your job to convince every one of the appropriateness of your edits. Gung ho attitude like "Who are you to decide?" will get you blocked. You have now been informed of the ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

And what was the condescension you showed towards me by judging that I am not well read? When you do it is fine but when I do it is "Gung ho"??? Mercuryjo ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

---

So you mean to say is your group of people like a cult or something? So you will allow only things you agree with? Mercuryjo ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ∯WBG ^converse 14:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi WBG, as I said at Talk:Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas a long time ago, I don't have any strong feelings about whether the article should stay or not. I agree that the notability is quite marginal. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh! :(

I didn't notice that the page was created by you or I would have utilized the premises of an AfD. Whilst the subject cleanly fails NPOL and GNG, (in my eyes), feel free to de-prod if you feel that there's any possible premises of including him.

On a side-note, Google Snippets is not much reliable at picking up particular words.I have seen ample cases, where the search function has detected quite less number of hits, than ought be. ∯WBG ^converse 16:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, Google snippets does not always show the actual content, but sometimes just shows the top of the page where it occurs. But if it says "1-0 out of 0 results", it means it isn't there. Given that Frykenberg would never have said a stupid thing like that, and the editor was clearly POV pushing, it was right to get rid of the content. Thanks for that! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

-- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 18:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya, The word Hindusthan is found in hindi & other north indian languages, as the page in question itself states. The word Bharatha desha are found in the southern & Oriya languages & bharath in rest of them. Hindusthan is restricted largely to the areas under mughal rule. I'm not sure how to prove a negative. the links cited for that claim are showing them in urdu/hindi languages. the claim however is not specific enough to delineate that 'hindusthan' is only used in hindi/ urdu & other mughal ruled regions. In Telugu, Kannada, or Malayalam, for example,the official names & vernacular names are India or Bhaaratha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Hindustan is spelt without a "h".

You are right that "Hindustan" is not used in South Indian languages etc., but the page is mostly talking about its use in English. In any case you can't reduce language to geography. A South Indian too might sing sare jahan se accha, and they won't think they are referring to North India when they say Hindustan hamara.

We do have a problem that we don't say enough about terminology in various Indian languages, but it is also hard to find sources for such discussion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am giving facts a figures with references you checked Indians in Pakistan i am editing from this page to page State-sponsored terrorism Thank you (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

.. Human3015 TALK  21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Humanist. Long time no see! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Pity that nobody is signing up to "Dharma nationalism" yet :-) But they will. It is only a matter of time. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regional power. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Center for Immigration Studies. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Far-right politics. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Probable sock of Burbak. - Sitush ( talk) 07:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

- LouisAragon ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 03:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that the Indian military history working group which was started in June 2016, as a part of the Military History WikiProject's incubator, now graduated into a full-fledged task force. You're receiving this message because you've shown you support previously to the working group, if you wish to be a part of present task force, kindly sign-up on the members page. Regards, KCVelaga ( talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H-1B visa. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted your move per WP:COMMONNAME and for being undiscussed. There's enough turbulence around articles about a number of cities etc in Uttar Pradesh as it is, even without undiscussed moves. Cheers, - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thomas.W, unfortunately not renaming it will cause more turbulence, not less. I think we should rename it and get it over with. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't move pages based on reports in newspapers. AFAIK a name change must be gazetted before becoming official, and once it has become official it should be discussed on the talk page before being moved. - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 18:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it to you sort out. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And even when "official" we don't immediately change the name, as per WP:COMMONNAME - see Bangalore which was "officially" changed over 4 years ago - Arjayay ( talk) 19:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you protect the page, there is too much editing there. -- Jaydayal ( talk) 13:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jaydayal, you can request protection at WP:RfPP. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources at ALL about Kutil and Mura matrilineal lineages? Only someone with absolutely ZERO understanding of Sanskrit would consider Kutil as a lineage. Kutil is Crook (not a human crook but a bend). Kautilya means Crooked. It's his Pseudonym. His real name's Chanakya Vishnugupta Sharman, a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala, nothing to do with any random imaginary tribal North Indian lineage. And who are you to decide Aryans were intruders? Your entire profile is a Neo-Pseudo-Hindu Dalit Pride Marxist Romila Thapar halcyon era Buddhism harping brand hijacking identity of Chanakya based off your reading of the 150 rupees translation of Chankaya Niti by Marxist interpolating fraud Vishwamitra Sharma available at any money spinning temple market. How can you claim to be devoid of bias on a site like Wikipedia? 115.97.47.219 ( talk) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3, the header was added by me. What's this rambling about? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The story on my user page. I never knew that Nambudiris had a claim on "Kautilya"! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the kind of editors Sitush is so fond of. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

115, if you indulge in so much negative characterizing how do you intend to escape it yourself? Just curious. On a serious note, this is a collaborative site with its own plus and minus, engage positively and you can have fun, why spoil our (you included) mood and time? -- Jaydayal ( talk) 13:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• diff

Dubious edit. I read the cited source and I still don't understand how this one is "more accurate". Looks more WP:POV rather than representing the source. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, possibly. I don't think Papola said that Dasa is a BMAC word. He is just saying, on p.83, that some of the Dasa mentioned in the Rigveda are BMAC words. It would be ironic if the Dasas were the BMAC people. On the one hand, they are demonised, and on the other, their god, Indra, was adopted as an Indo-Aryan god. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, that section you removed about women's actions during the Kashmir conflict was one that my group had to write for a group project and add to a Wikipedia page. However, it has to be a subsection rather than an entire page. Is there any other page that it can be added to regarding the Kashmir Conflict? Flowergirls7 ( talk) 01:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Flowergirls7

Flowergirls7, if you are doing a student project, please let your instructor know that they have to follow the instructions at WP:Student assignments.

There is certainly a need for a section on women's roles in the Kashmir insurgency article, assuming you are interested in the insurgency aspects. But you need to read the article first and find content that fits into the narrative of the article. You can't just write a little essay and stick it anywhere you please. Also, you need to read more sources. Nyla Ali Khan's book is a bit of a personalised memoir. It may not have much content that can go into an encyclopedia. Here are a couple of scholarly works that deal with the subject better:

• Shekhawat, Seema (2014), Gender, Conflict and Peace in Kashmir, Cambridge University Press, ISBN  978-1-107-04187-5
• Parashar, Swati (2014), Women and Militant Wars: The politics of injury, Routledge, ISBN  978-1-134-11606-5

Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I can see that you contributed extensively to this article Musunuri Nayakas. I can see several changes happened to this article recently and I am not sure if those are constructive. Can you look into this article when you get a chance. Cheers Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 16:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I reverted the edits from newbies. They were clearly putting up POVs. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you send me a mail from different email IDs... so a total of two mails? My Gmail is giving me a really weird message. :D :D Regards. DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Gmail is paranoid, but nothing is wrong. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 05:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm ok... :D Just now I asked Peacemaker what he thought about being careful with identities when editing pages such as Bleed India and all on my talkpage just now, he also considered being circumspect when it comes to identity. Anyway. :D DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 05:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Read and discuss on Ayodhya talk page before removing my citation again. Thanks. JayB91 ( talk) 06:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that you are using the article on Kartarpur Corridor to publish unverifiable, non cited information. Please remember Wikipedia is a knowledge base and not a ground of political discourse. Please keep the tone neutral and desist from statements that arouse sentiments. For instance, you claimed that the Akali Dal asked PM Nehru to redraw India's western boundary and include the Kartarpur in India. You have not cited any original article or knowledge base to substantiate this claim. I have complete knowledge of this proposed corridor and I created the page too. Incited, and non cited unreliable claims will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanverma121 ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Everything I have added to the article has citations. And there are plenty of other editors watching the page too. If there is any statement that is not verified, you can tag it with a {{not in source}} tag and somebody will look into it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
	Hi Kautilya3/Archives, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year! May 2019 be prosperous and joyful...... Thanks for all your help and your contributions to the 'pedia ∯WBG converse 16:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The DYK progress was not possible without your immense help in improving the article. It is only fair if the credits for this DYK is shared with you. cheers. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 10:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Kashmir Conflict have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Vanamonde93: it seems to me that this editor is in for a block for disruptive editing... See Kashmir conflict: Revision history for his removal of quotes which were given within references and quotation-marks, and his edit-summaries. Or, alternatively, they really don't understand the policy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Joshua Jonathan: Are you aware that per WP:COPYQUOTE addition of extensive quotes is prohibited? The real disruption is copyright violations.@ Diannaa: Please take a look at the massive amounts of copyrighted paragraphs Kautilya3 has been adding on Kashmir Conflict over the past few years, despite awareness that it is prohibited. (See his 9 May edit summary here) I have just been spending my weekend morning getting rid of these infringements. [9] [10] There is still plenty more to clean up. Its quite problematic that this user (and others, though most of those are blocked already) has been adding thousands of bytes of copyrighted quotes. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 11:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And this quoting is not extensive. Note also "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment"; I don't see good judgment here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No dear. You have yourself accepted my point on Talk:Kashmiris. [11] You need to more closely examine the issue. Excessive quotes are not allowed. It is quite obvious that these quotes are excessive when in just the preliminary stage the quotes I have removed are turning out to be worth thousands of bytes. Dilpa kaur ( talk) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) I would agree with User:Joshua Jonathan's ping to @ Vanamonde93: that a Block here is in order. This user above is only interested in attacking other editors left and right and making up frivolous cases on Admin boards in hopes of getting the editors blocked. They have a peculiar special interest in edits by Kautilya3 (hounding) that reminds me of another banned editor User:Towns Hill. recommend a WP:NOTHERE block on them. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 12:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny. Look at this edit-summary. And also User talk:Yunshui/Archive 57#Kautilya3/Towns Hill, and User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 11#Towns Hill. Funny also that they refer back to a thread at User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 73#ARBIP dating back to sepetember 2014. How would they know this thread existed? Going through all of Kautilya3's edits and talk-page discussions? Ping Dianaa here too (sorry Diannaa, to bother you). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

And? I have always been candid with admins about the emails I receive. They are very informative. I have even got emails from still active users privately confessing that Kautilya3 canvassed them for content disputes, his emails are quoted. I will share those with the admins in my own good time. For now the concern is these copyright violations. And my question is, how did you get to Kashmir conflict when you had never edited that article or its talkpage [12] before, unlike me. [13] Dilpa kaur ( talk) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dilpa kaur, using properly attributed quotations is not a violation of the copyright policy. Joshua Jonathan, if you think that Dilpa kaur is a sock of a blocked user, the proper place to report is at WP:SPI. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 14:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I have given Dilpa kaur some advice on the talk page of Rape during the Kashmir conflict. I will examine their editing history before deciding if anything more needs to be done. Given that they have been involved with a number of disputes with users with whom I have interacted, I will not be issuing a unilateral block, although I am not actually WP:INVOLVED, and am not at this time recusing from an AE discussion or equivalent. It is rather unfortunate that a previous ANI discussion about Dilpa kaur, and a previous Copyvio noticeboard discussion about the issue of quotations in citations on a related topic, were both closed without much outside input. Regardless of what happens with Dilpa kaur, I would recommend that the copyright issue be revisited at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or elsewhere, to lay this issue to rest. Vanamonde ( talk) 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC) (Added post EC: thanks for the clarification, Dianaa.) Dilpa kaur, please take the issue to the talk page, as you should have done right at the beginning, to determine whether specific quotes may be trimmed without losing verifiability. Vanamonde ( talk) 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dilpa kaur, Thanks for your efforts to address the quotation issues. I add quotations when

• sources are not available on line,
• the issues are contentious enough that direct evidence is warranted, or
• additional detail or primary source material may be involved, which I don't judge to be WP:DUE for the main body of the article.

I also use "footnotes" when I do some of these things, rather than "references". But I admit that I don't have a hard-and-fast rule about it. You should not remove a footnote and convert it into a reference without discussion.

My quotations are also usually one or two sentences, not "massive amounts of paragraphs" as you allege. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DBig. I did indeed have a nice holiday. Hope you had enjoyable holidays too. Wish you a happy and productive New Year! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New year! Sorry for replying late. Wiki user anonymous ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a big fan of a game named Theotown. I am confused how to make a page on it. Maybe you can help me? Wiki user anonymous ( talk) 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, Wiki user anonymous. Your welcome message contains a link to "How to create a great article". Please give it at least a cursory reading. On your user page, you will find a link to your "sandbox" at the top. Please use that to create a draft and ask knowledgeable editors to review it. When it is complete, you can submit it to new page review. Looking at other similar pages on games will give you an idea how to structure your article. All the best! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

First off, the article Mughal–Maratha Wars, the sourcing is in serious need of reviewing, revising, and fact-checking.

Secondly, a set of sentences:

• "In several brilliant cavalry movements, Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav defeated the Mughals. Their offensive, and especially that of Santaji, struck terror into the hearts of the Mughals. In the Battle of Athani, Santaji defeated Kasim Khan, a noted Mughal general."
  

supposedly sourced to Robinson, Howard; James Thomson Shotwell (1922). "Mogul Empire and the Marathas". The Development of the British Empire. Houghton Mifflin. p. 106–132. A search through this book for Ghorpade, Athani(Attani), Kasim Khan, bring up nothing. The last sentence is linked to a book that has plagiarized from Wikipedia.

Do you know of any source mentioning the battle of Athani(Attani)??

Google book search turns up nothing. Jstor turns up nothing.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I can see that you were involved with this article in the past. I have added some reliable sources at Talk:Raju. Can you please suggest improvements to the article as it is highly one sided and doesn't include all viewpoints. Thanks Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 15:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you Sharkslayer87. I don't know much about the "Raju" caste and my search for material brought up practically nothing. I do accept that Rajus are accepted as "Kshatriyas" in the present day Telugu society, as I remarked at Talk:Raju a long time ago. The rest, I leave to you to sort out. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

this section look way too nuanced ? ∯WBG ^converse 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a new use of "nuanced" for me, but yes, miles away from NPOV. I noticed that you got the DYK put on hold. Let us see what we can do. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have remade the edits, please approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by School Wiki Group Leader ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The references state clearly that "Though the move is aimed at benefiting the poorer segments of upper caste Hindus as well as other religions, the suggested eligibility criteria covers over 80% of India's population" then why are you adding 20% more? Djsnape ( talk) 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what the article says:

Ironically, nearly 100% of Indian households will be eligible beneficiaries under the above-mentioned income criterion as per government data.

-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply, do you think is it right to add 100% and not 80% which is in the sub-heading of the article. Is it neutral, maybe you should remove that line as sub-heading and content are differing.

SUBHEADING:

Though the move is aimed at benefiting the poorer segments of upper caste Hindus as well as other religions, the suggested eligibility criteria covers over 80% of India's population.

CONTENT:

Ironically, nearly 100% of Indian households will be eligible beneficiaries under the above-mentioned income criterion as per government data.

businesstoday.in is stating both 100 and 80, why are you preferring 100 over 80? Djsnape ( talk) 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The income criterion mentioned in the article, and stated in hundreds of media stories, cover the 100% population. I think you should stop frantically posting and editing, and actually sit down to read the sources.

Frankly, none of this matters a whole lot. The definition of 'economically backward' is not going to be given in the Constitution. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a note introducing Wikipedia and it's features on my talk page. I hope i can continue contributing appropriate content to Wikipedia. I have created my first page a few weeks ago and was wondering if you could review it and suggest improvements. I would highly appreciate your time and efforts. I am not sure if this how we are supposed to send a message on Wikipedia. Regards, AkkiDeutscher ( talk) 18:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

AkkiDeutscher, welcome to Wikipedia again. Your edit to the Reservation in India page was quite good. I look forward to your continuing contributions, especially for dealing with current events.

I took a look at your new page. While I think it is quite well-written again, the article seems to be lacking WP:THIRDPARTY sources. So, I am not confident that it will be accepted. You might want to save the text in your own files, and continue looking for sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Slavery in India, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 19:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 ( talk) 19:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the harassment I was facing. I received a ping by Bishonen from the thread but, it was already taken care of by the admins by the time I noticed. You had already said everything there was to say, so nothing for me to add, other than a thanks to you and Bishonen. Regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 04:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, DBigXray. The posts popped up in my routine patrolling. And, looking it the editor's talk page, I noticed that it had been going on for a while. But I was indeed surprised that indef was the agreed sanction from all three admins. So I suppose that is what the admin code book says. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Great Kashmir is an Instagram page managed by its single admin Aizaz Ahmad Mir. It is a Srinagar based page and promotes natural beauty of Kashmir. www.instagram.com/thegreatkashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir Aizaz ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me Mir Aizaz. Kashmir is indeed very beautiful. Hope to go visit some day. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)