Hi Kautilya3, I think you got confused between the two of my edits. The edit you are talking about is different from the diff I provided in that section. Thank you for promptly updating the book edition. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Yes, I understand. However, I do mean it when I say you are being entirely negative. Can you do some research and find new material for Wikipedia, rather than merely nitpicking on other people's material? For instance, we don't yet have any information on Angana Chatterji's ISI connections. That should be of interest to you? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to hate my edits! I have created new articles too! What's wrong in making corrections? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with making corrections as long as your overall objective is to contribute knowledge to the world. But I see you focused almost exclusively on contesting other people's knowledge or writing. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That is your analysis. So, are you tracking my edits? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Of course I do. Wikipedia is a community, and we depend on trust. When I saw that you reverted edits within 10 minutes of noticing a page number issue, I checked your contributions and I see a pattern of such reverts. This is a big waste of time for everybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Despite our difference of opinion on the content at BGT page I appreciate your concern and efforts. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, from my perspective, it was not 'page number issue': I had the given reference and I searched the entire book and did not find it. The edition of the book itself was changed later. I hope you can see my point. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Bladesmulti (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kautilya3, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive contributor. Your contributions are part of the historical record of Wikipedia. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, your use of alternative accounts has been mentioned on my talk page and, quite frankly, I find it problematic, because you have violated the relevant policy, even if that was not your intention. First, you violated it by participating in the same discussion with both accounts and then you probably violated it again when you participated in an ArbCom case request using this Kautilya3 instead of your primary account (I say probably because you say you undisclosed the connection to only one arbitrator and not to the entire arbitration committee, so, as far as I'm concerned, I'm more inclined to consider it undisclosed for the purposes of WP:ILLEGIT, though reasonable people may disagree here). Now, I don't think a block is necessary, because I consider this violation accidental, but I have to ask you to please choose one account and only edit from it, abandoning the other entirely: while it's possible to have an undisclosed alternative account for privacy reasons, its use is subject to various and limitations and, anyway, it's considered inappropriate to edit within the same topic area with two different accounts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the Praveen Togadia dispute, concluding that other dispute resolution processes should be attempted first. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for AmritasyaPutra, a kitten for you: stay calm and relaxed. I first wnated to remove the above warning, but I don't know if I'm allowed to do so. I'll check. he did himself! Great!!! Now that's really cool!

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

JJ I was removing it when you made this edit and there was an edit conflict. It was the wrong template. Kautilya3, I am just putting in simple words here -- kindly stop commenting on me and elaborating your ideas of admin examining me, if you do hold a complaint and think it is disruptive then take appropriate action and close the chapter once and for all instead of re-igniting it every alternate day. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should both bear in mind that you have different opinions and interests reagrding India. That's quite common; I'm still shocked sometimes by the agression and hatred at India-related pages. Westerners tend to beleive this fiction of "spiritual India"; well, from what I see at Wikipedia... But this is also teaching me, again and again, how important it is to listen to another one, and to try to understand what's important to the other, even the more when I disagree. After all, we're all human (yeah, even that stupid *** who doesn't understand anything at all too; he too is working hard to gain some dignity and respect. Pfff, enough preaching for today...) Hey, India needs all of you!!! Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you very much for your kitten! It is always nice to make friends on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand what is going on here. I am neither angry nor annoyed with AmritasyaPutra. I am frustrated with him, which is an entirely different phenomenon. At the moment, I am only able to spend about 10% of my time in creating content and need to spend 90% of my time in arguing with Amritasya on entirely spurious issues. If my frustration is to be removed, his editing behaviour needs to change. If you can bring about such change in him, my kudos to you. I also believe that the differences between him and me are not only in our opinions regarding India. They are much more crucially about what Wikipedia is about. I see my role as documenting and providing information to people. I believe he sees his role as blocking information from appearing here. The majority of his work on Wikipedia is devoted to reverting other people's edits, deleting information, objecting to information based on spurious grounds and often imaginary policies that he makes up for himself. If you can turn him into a positive contributor to Wikipedia, I would be entirely happy to collaborate with him in producing content. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your commentary of edits done by me is misplaced and inflammatory. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Think about it, AmritasyaPutra, just think about it: what does this mean to him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused, I honestly don't know what you mean to convey. Probably it makes him even more bitter? -- Is that what you meant? Lets all meet for tea at my house... that will be fun I can throw napkins at Kautilya3. :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to help him, and relieve your frustrations. As for the napkins: that's better! Now we're laughing (at least I am; I hope Kautilya3 doesn't feel offended). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Since everybody seems a lot happier now, I'd just like to add that I more or less echo Kautilya's concerns; that I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time quibbling with User:AmritasyaPutra about stuff that should not really be quibbled about. The funny thing is that despite the mayhem of the last few days, our biggest clash was not any of the recent ones. That said, now that JJ is mentoring Amritasya, I'm hoping that we can cooperate, at the very least; after all, we did do so once, in a different time and age. I am posting here because I am still banned from AP's talk. As a gesture of good faith, I am willing to allow him to post to my talk once again, provided those posts are not template warnings, which he flings around far too liberally. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You pinged me too. If you want to oblige me, stop these unfriendly commentary. Last time I can be bothered to say this. Avoid following me around. I definitely do not get the idea why you want to say banned from AP's talk -- it is entirely upto you. "Good faith" should be in action not this covert attack. :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course I pinged you; the message is directed at you! I am not attempting to oblige you in any way; I am trying to ensure our time is spent productively. The rationale behind my "attacks," as you call them, is clearly visible in your interaction history. In any case, I am not reflexively going to reinstate the ban on my talk; but template warnings from you are not welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dude, 'I' stop here. Have a nice day. :-)--AmritasyaPutra^T 16:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the sense I get is that User:AmritasyaPutra doesn't want us to make any comments on his editing/debating style etc. I guess he had enough of it. Fair enough. I will leave it to Joshua do any coaching that may be necessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

When you assert that you people felt your time was wasted in discussion -- I agree (so don't waste it). Judgmental remarks are (more) reflective. Let us give it a try. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, it would be highly appreciated if you and Van wait for a discussion on article talk page before removing established (was in the article was long) referenced content that seems a little contentious. The article was read and copy-edited by four editors recently and there was no objection to the text or the reference and imho the replaced text is selective and not in neutral tone. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sir, let me add that I have no objection to further adding referenced text. But the content that was added was selective and not neutral in tone imho. And some referenced text which was there for long was removed. Perhaps we can work on it together in draft space? That would be nice collaboration and avoid any edit war in article space. We can probably work it upto good article level together here? Looking forward to collaborate with you! Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I read the Jaff piece and it is informative. I have added it myself. The other article by Vidya Subramanian was under "opinion" section of The Hindu and there were few factual inaccuracy in it which were subsequently Pointed by SG and acknowledged by The Hindu (it came in the print edition, I am not able to find the summary note in online archives). Thanks! --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Sure, I am always happy to discuss things on the talk page and so is User:Vanamonde93. There is no hurry. The previous source was S. Gurumurthy, a leader of the Sangh Parivar, who is de jure unreliable. Whatever he says must to be corroborated by other sources, and in this case it wasn't. His piece was haf of a debate in the The Hindu, and whoever wrote the article took his piece and ignored the other piece. This is the most blatant instance of WP:POV if I ever saw one. Vidya Subrahmaniam, who is a senior editor of The Hindu contradicted everything he said and even produced clippings from the old editions of The Hindu to prove her point. So, pretty much nothing from the S. Gurumurthy source is usable on Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How credible is VS opinion which she prints in her own paper? SG backed up his statements with documents too. S. Gurumurthy is a scholar to say the least. You write, "whoever wrote the article took his piece and ignored the other piece. This is the most blatant instance of WP:POV if I ever saw one." may I say that you did the same by deleting his piece and adding bulk content from the other piece? --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I "demean" anybody? I just said he is not reliable (as per Wikipedia policy). Any member of the Sangh Parivar counts as a "first party" when writing about the Sangh Parivar. A reliable source must be third party, which he isn't. End of story.

By the way, this discussion has gone beyond a personal conversation. So, if you want to continue it, please copy it to the article talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: The right thing for you to do would be to state on the article talk precisely what bits from the S. Gurumurthy piece should be included and why. You might also state what bits from Vidya Subrahmaniam you dispute. Please be as specific as possible. When you talk vaguely about policies and rules, and nothing about substance, the discussion quickly degenerates into a slugfest and nothing is achieved. (By the way, I have read all the pieces in question and made a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. If you want to question anything, please do. But please be specific!) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with me according to your reverts at M. S. Golwalkar. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity. Instead of edit warring, please participate in the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you.--AmritasyaPutra^T 10:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right about what? The edit summary was "the word arya was not used in sikhism as sikhism was started in 15th century this word was unknown to sikh gurus." This is ludicrous. The word Arya would have been known to Sikh gurus as to every other guru in India at the time, or are you seriously suggesting that the word which is central to Sanskrit religious culture had somehow become "unknown" in the 15th century? What on earth do you base that claim on? Paul B (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are winding me up, aren't you? "Arya" is a dead word. It has been dead for a long time, long before Sikhism was born. Arya Samaj resurrected the word for political purposes. Anyway, the right way for you to contest it would be to produce some reliable sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dead word? What planet are you living on? Yes, of course the Arya Samaj used it to bash Sikhs, but that does not somehow mean that the Sikh gurus, long before Dayananda was born, somehow did not know a word that recurs repeatedly in Sanskrit and Prakirt texts. That's nonsensical. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But, then, you should be able to prove it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: Perhaps a clarification is in order. The term arya has been used frequently, and probably continues to be used, in the sense of a "noble person". But the use of arya to mean an ethnic group is entirely limited to the Vedic times. The historian Romila Thapar has said that it is doubtful if it was used in that sense even in Vedic times. (Probably they were just trying to say we are the "cultured" and those are the "brutes".) The term arya dharma, to mean the religion of these people, is not something I have ever seen. The paragraph in question doesn't give any citations for it either. So I am going to tag it as "citation needed." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's doubtful whether the word was used in an ethnic sense even Vedic culture, though it clearly is in Iranian literature. But that's not what the deleting editor said is it? He said that the word was unknown to Sikh gurus, which is absurd. And you agreed with him. By your own argument, there is no reason to separate Sikhs from other religions in the context of this section. Its use or non-use with ethnic meaning applies equally to Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From Living Together, Fordham University Press, New York 2013: Nehru proposes the concept of Arya dharma to encapsulate all faiths—Vedic and non-Vedic—that emerged in "India." There are more academic sources that discuss the phrase. Argument of "the word arya was not known to sikh Guru" is not defensible. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is brilliant! Thanks for finding it. It fills with me great joy. We can now credit the "arya dharma" reference to Nehru. Secondly, this proves that Nehru had as much Hindutva as your next door neighbour. All the demonisation of Nehru that the Sangh Parivar has been doing was pure bull shit! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you copy-edit this cleanup of Shiv Sena here? Concerned editors have been pinged to collaborate here. It has been mentioned duly on the article talk page also. The article was in very bad shape (countless Further reading and See Also entries to say the least). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will try. Tonight. But, note that just copy-editing is not going to do the trick. There seem to be issues with the sources and how to interpret the sources. I can't look through all of them. I have advised Sd to take them up issue by issue. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The aim is stepwise improvement. I edited assuming everything is supported in the references without deleting any reliable reference. There were few, very few obvious story-telling reference; I removed them, and removed some undue content. If at least three editors have copy-edited the entire article without deleting any reliable reference then definitely it is a step forward! --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, did you get a chance to check this? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, yes, I looked at it on the Diwali night. I didn't see any major need for copy-editing either in the public version or your version. The disagreements are on substance, not the words. So, unless you can teach your mentee to debate properly, this is not going to resolve anything, especially because the 'other side' hasn't participated in your stepwise improvement exercise. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Was doing a copy-edit with other editors like you a bad idea? The aim was general improvement of the article, I am absolutely clueless what 'substance' you are referring to or what 'anything' you were thinking of 'resolving'. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Sdmarathe was edit-warring with User:Vanamonde93 and possibly others when you and I went in to calm him down. Does "copy editing" resolve the issues they were facing? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Vanamonde was edit-warring with Sdmarathe, he reverted him 5 times. Like I said previously copy-edit is for general improvement of the article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There was content that Sdmarathe wanted deleted, and Vanamonde93 didn't agree. So, if you remove even more material in the name of "clean-up", I don't see how Vanamonde93 will agree to it either. This problem is not resolved by "copy editing". Every bit of material that you or Sd want deleted, has to be mentioned one-by-one, justified and consensus obtained. You can of course grow your own version of Wikipedia under your User page, but to put it back into the main Wikipedia, the issues have to be faced and consensus obtained. I can't be of much help here, because this is not my page and it is not my subject. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly want to keep raking up that incident when all I asked was simple improvements. Suit yourself. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so, the conflicts happen because I want them? You give me too much credit, my friend. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AP, for once I believe this is a simple misunderstanding. The point K3 is making, is that when there is a disagreement over the substance (ie topics, sources, weighting, etc) then fixing language, grammar, and flow is a slight waste of effort. In other words, we should discuss the content and sources before spending time on a copy-edit (or rather, we would like to; if you wish to copy-edit anyway, I have no issues). Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I ever say it is to solve any content dispute? By all means continue the discussion on the article talk page! The cleanup without deleting a single reliable reference (or referenced content) and merely removing an unambiguously bloated see also and further reading section, and following label and such policy is of no good use? Quite a misunderstanding no doubt my friends! Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Sdmarathe believes that your clean-up will resolve most, if not all, of his issues, and he doesn't need to do anything. He hasn't followed my advice of raising contentious issues one-by-one in a way that the rest of us can judge them. I will take another look at what you have been done since you seem to have edited further after Diwali. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely clueless why you think so, can you provide diff where the user indicates such belief? He most definitely needs to discuss any contentious content reversal on the article talk page, and I think he took your advise and there is no instance of revert on his part since taking your advise (if I am wrong please provide a diff). Cheers friend! --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what he said diff at 02:55, 23 October. I told him this at 06:25 on the same day, but there hasn't been any follow-up from him. If he has given up his disagreements that is perfectly fine, but I find it hard to believe that he would have. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend, assume good faith , he took your advise and agreed to collaborate following reliable sources. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. After the initial revert on Oct 22-23, I have taken everything since then to the talk pages. I also posted any objection to verbiage to the article's talk discussion. I also read the copy edit and posted that I was fine with it as well (on its talk page) --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Sdmarathe:. I hope you will continue looking at the sources when you want to contest issues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that all Indian administered Kashmir be called IOK and Pakistan administered Kashmir as POK ? Delljvc (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Delljvc: No, "occupied" is a loaded term. We tend to say "administered" on Wikipedia. Wherever the term "occupied" occurs on our pages, it needs to be replaced by "administered". However, if we are citing a source and the source uses the term "occupied", we can't substitute that with something else. I noticed that you were replacing the titles of the newspaper articles to be different from what they were. We don't do that. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Delljvc and Kautilya3, editors have gone over this repeatedly. Either add the POV terms of all sides in all articles or not add at all in any of them and use neutral terms like 'administered' or controlled (if in context). You can see the consensus here (editors from all sides participated) Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December. Hopefully this will end the moot discussion. Simply put PoK / IoK as a terminology or claims in Kashmir dispute and refrain from adding them (esp to the lede) of the three territory articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: Exactly. You will see from this diff that that is what my version was doing. On the other hand, the version you have reinstated [1] has all of Delljvc's POV. So, can you self-revert? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: By the way, Gilgit-Baltistan is not included as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution. So, calling it a "territory of Pakistan" is POV. I changed it to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which should not have an objection from anybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was already linked to Pakistani "administrative" territories. What you were saying was already there. Maybe you missed it. Saying it again and again in the same sentence doesn't make sense but I wont oppose you if you want to re-add just that (but is it really needed?). My main reason for the revert was all the other additions of PoK that you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: I am afraid I am not getting through to you. I am copying this discussion to the article page, which is where it belongs, and asking for WP:DRN. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure... tell me what you want to do here. Rename GB & Azad Kashmir to PoK and Keep J&K as is? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you didn't get to me given the first comment of Delljvc was totally something else... :) I've left a comment at the article talk where you moved this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Misunderstandings happen! Perhaps, you can add a note on the WP:DRN referral that you agree with the changes and they can close the issue.

@TopGun: The only change I have made is to change "territory of Pakistan" in the lead to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir". This change is because AJK and GB are not listed as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution, whereas a "territory" of a country is normally understood to be its part. I could also settle for "administered territory of Pakistan" if that sounds more neutral to you. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with using administered (if you see I am actually favouring it). What I was saying was it is being referred to in the same sentence twice. The last suggest seems more sensible imo according to my previous comments, I wouldn't really oppose the current version too though it's a bit less elegant. For the PoK edits, I guess it was fixation from another dispute at AJK. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahabharata can not be written before 1000 BCE. It was actually written between 500 BCE and 500 AD. All eminent historians more or less agreed on this. No need to give currency to Myths produced by enthusiasts or interested groups. It beats the common logic of Historiography. Let him come with a reliable source.Ghatus (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I have dug up the sources and added them in the "Sources" section. I suggest you go through them. I am not saying anything either way. But I would prefer to see a substantive discussion instead of an edit war. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Notice that you have removed content sourced from an OUP book. That is not on. My first instinct was to revert your revert. The only reason I didn't was that I recognized your name from earlier edits. Wouldn't it be better to discuss these issues instead of edit warring? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Go to History of India Talk Page.

1. A GoI secretary, not any Historian wrote that Oxford University Press book. Eminent historians like Romila Thapar, RC Majumder , JN Sarkar etc never gave such a date of 1500 BCE when the war might take place (if true) around 900 BCE.

2.It is an individual's( who is neither a historian nor an expert on old texts) opinion trying to be placed a general opinion. Ghatus (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya,

This is regarding your vote for deletion of the page on Great Lakes. I am working towards improving the page. So, would request you to give me time to make changes and corrections to the page! Sushree27 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, please be sure to include some third party sources: newspapers, magazine articles etc. The wiki page can't just refer to the institution web sites. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am including news articles as references and not the institution website. Hope this works! :) But I really need help with the paraphrasing flag that has been raised. I can't view the link and have no idea what content it is referring to. Now that I have reworked the entire content, can we take that down? Do let me know! Sushree27 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sushree27: I will look into it. Now that you are well-settled, further discussion can take place on the article's talk page rather than here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Both the wiki pages need serious modifications. They are written in 1920-30s historiography and perfect example of communal interpretation of History. But, now I am extremely busy in exam preparation which is knocking at the door. So. it will take time. I can do minor edits but not major edits now.Ghatus (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is a concept applied to people who have been blocked or banned, I believe. AP's attempt to drag it up here are misleading at best. I would explain this on his talk, had he not banned me from it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please upload a Flag/logo for the Bharatiya Janata Party article. There was a logo but unfortunately it was delete due to license issue. Therefore, please upload valid license logo for BJP make sure its in SVG format and uploaded in commons section, so that it can be put in other languages as well. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The page now does not belong to AP. Hence, kept only Telangana. Now I edited it with summary.--Vin09 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't "belong" to projects. The relevant line in the banner would have said "This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh." Do you have any reason to believe that they don't want to support it any more? Are you a member of the project?

I am also copying this discussion to the article talk page where it rightly belongs. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The wiki article on Vaghela needs changes. It contains unverified tall claims on his behalf, such as a) BJP atually wanted to make him (not Keshubhai Patel) CM in 1995, b) Suresh Menhta was his loyalist, etc etc. His electoral history is sloppily written. I added info about where he was elected from in 1989 and 1991, later 1999 and 2004, where he lost from. I corrected some inaccuracies; for example the following statement is not correct: From 1996 to 1997 he was a member of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. He became MLA in early 1997, not 1996.

I spent 20-25 minutes researching and doing changes. How can you simply roll them back without checking what changes were made, and applying your own knowledge and doing some research yourself? Of course if you are a chamcha of Vaghela, you may want your own version to prevail. In which case you can write whatever you want. But I am assuming you want the article to be factual - and I added facts to it, and removed some tall claims on Vaghela's behalf. I did not add any unwanted praise or unwanted criticism, since I am neutral to him.

I know that you have spent a lot of time. That is why I took the trouble of writing an explanatory message on your talk page. When we see extensive and contentious changes from an unregistered user, without an explanation of what has been done, we are suspicious of what has been done. You can undo my revert if you want, provided you write a detailed note on the article talk page, describing what changes you are making. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 - I edit quite a few wiki pages about Indian politics (strictly to add facts, not to discuss opinions), but had never left a summary of edits before. But you have a point. Since you prefer that a summary of changes be added, I will add a note about the changes. I also found that Vaghela was alleged to have won Lok Sabha elections from seats from which he did not contest, and I set some of that data correct, too. For example, the data for the erstwhile Kapadvanj Lok Sabha seat was plain wrong, but I have corrected it now.

Correcting errors is always welcome. But you need to provide the sources for your new information. Otherwise it is likely to get reverted just the same. You also cannot delete or alter text that has previously provided sources, without having discussed it on the article talk page first. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As one of the people to vote for a merge of this article, perhaps you would like to find anything worthwhile to merge into the main article. noq (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is a reminder about your participation at WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014. Please manually update your assessment score from 14 November 2014 here. Thanks and happy assessing! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There was heavy amount of whitewashing done by the IP address if you see the history of the article. He changed:-

"Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. Between 1860 and 1920, the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior"... to ... "Caste is thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but some contemporary scholars argue that the caste system in its modern form was constructed by British colonial rule. Between 1860 and 1920, the British codified the castes of India and granted administrative jobs"..

No where it says modern or some contemporary scholars.

He changed "This and related collections became controversial for staging extreme effects and constructing identities of various colonised nations".. to .."This and related collections became controversial and were accused of staging extreme effects and constructing identities of various colonised nations. "

Since it is a historically accepted charge, why he needed to add were accused of?

He did that on whole page, and after that he added "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Célestin Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India, quite similar in many respects to the social stratification found in 17th to 19th century Europe."

His citation is not mentioning 17th or seventeenth century anywhere on whole article, nor it says that it existed before the British rule, he has misrepresented that book/link. It is only reporting the relevance of this system when British were already ruling for decades. You think that we can actually use a missionary as citation? When we have already added to the article that caste system in other forms existed prior to British regime. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I have read the Zwart article cover to cover, and I am pretty sure that our text misrepresents what he says. I am also sure that it pretends to present scholarly consensus where it doesn't exist. I had changed "contemporary scholars" to "postmodern scholars" (exactly what the source says), but people changed it back to "contemporary" again. There are multiple viewpoints in the literature, and we are pushing them under the carpet. Perhaps the IP's edits weren't the best possible, but his text is closer to the situation in the sources than the previous text. I promised to summarize the Zwart article on the article talk page, but never got around it. Let me spend some time on it this weekend and we can talk about it again. Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading this article^[1] and seeing what it says about Dirks. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you self-revert for now? Because his mistreatment of the term its modern form is just out of relevance and other things that he added weren't even supported by the citation. When we say contemporary we are talking about the modern times. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted for now and changed to various contemporary than just contemporary. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2014‎ (UTC)

The problem is not with "contemporary", but rather with selective elimination of the postcolonial aspect. The postcolonials are quite happy to blame it all on the colonial governments. I am sure that the colonial governments have had plenty of faults, but some of these arguments go to rather extremes. Lorenzen made it quite clear what he thought of this particular argument. We are making it appear as if there is a consensus among the contemporary scholars, but the reality is that it is only one extreme wing of the scholars that say this. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

i have written the facts on the page Bhargava. Bhargavas are Dhusar Brahmins not Dhusar Vaishyas as you have written on page. Discussions on talk page are sham. There are many citations which suggest that Bhargavas are Brahmans but you still call them Vaishya. Stop this non sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on page Bhargava are intriguing. Wonder if you could go through the entire discussions. All discussions are revolving around whether Bhargava community is/was a Brahmin or a Vaishy community. The so called Sanskritisation mentioned by yourself and Sitush, which you claim occured 150 years ago is not applicable here. I have given citations which say that Bhargava community was the 'Rajpurohits' at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan and Hindu king Hemu's ancestors/father were Purohits too in 1500AD. There is hardly any difference in the status of Brahmins and Vaishys. Both are strong communities. However, writing Bhargavas as Vaishyas only confuses their identity and Wikipedia should not be a place for such confusion. Resentment of community at this is natural.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bhargavaflame: Sitush is an expert on castes. He has edited/cleaned up hundreds of caste pages like this one, and probably faced contentious disputes on all of them. So, you need to convince him with reliable sources. Caste traditions are folklore and they are created by influential parties at will and propagated. Only serious academic research can determine the truth of their assertions. We all belong to castes ourselves, and we know the unreliability of such traditions for our own castes. So, please don't assume that you are in a unique position. If there are serious academic sources that back up your claims, please find them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try again with more reliable citations. Thanks.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light"[2] . I assume you are also referring to me when you say nominator and his friends. I don't remember having prior interactions with the nominator and if you feel that we are doing something wrong then you know where to report. I would consider this as a personal attack and consider being warned about this. -sarvajna (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, last warning. You have attacked three editors on that page. You are being disruptive. Discuss content, take complaint about conduct to ANI. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Stating that a person has been canvassed, and providing a diff, is not a personal attack in any sense of the word. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• He has been warned previously on same page by Sarvajna (read above and follow the diff). Accusing editors of WP:FACTION and WP:CANVASSING is serious attack. If you mean it goto ANI. If you find it playful and repeat indiscriminately you will find yourself at ANI. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I had enough of this. @AmritasyaPutra: Please stop lecturing me on my talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Just saw all your edits before was really curious , did you or any ony one you knew were deeply affected by the organisations ?. really would like to know about this as you know yourself in media often the truths are twisted ? Shrikanthv (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your article on Agra religious conversions 2014 is very interesting. Keep it up!Thinkmaths (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Per above, interesting article. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, my Christmas gift to Wikipedia, to be enjoyed by both the Left and the Right. I will be off for a few days. Enjoy your Christmas, every one! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the straw poll at Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Straw poll on "Controversy" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gabrielm99: Thanks for getting in touch, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am quite available to have a chat any time during this weekend (10am-10pm UTC). I am not exactly a newcomer though. I have been involved with Wikipedia for several years (using an another account), but it is only since this summer that I have been active with regular writing. So, I am new, sort of. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yo RoyalMate1 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Royalmate1: Thanks very much! Very kind. But I wonder what it was that you liked. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably a recent edit RoyalMate1 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have made very nice changes to history pages. Hope to see some more from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, mate :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dugmaia. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Great comment; highly appreciated 'self'-criticism ("self" as the cultural etc background). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Formation and spread of Vedic culture

The origins of the Vedic culture lie in the interaction of the proto-Indo-Iranians with the BMAC, approximately 2,000-1,800 BCE, in the area of what is nowadays northern Afganistan. From this area, the Vedic people migrated over the Hindu Kush into the Indus Valley, around 1,500 BCE. The emergence of the proto-Indo-Iranians is part of the Indo-European migrations. These migrations started 4,000 BCE with a diffusion from their origins in the Yamna culture, which was part of the Kurgan horizon. At 2,000 BCE started the migrations out of the Eastern-European steppes. Sources: Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009), Empires of the Silk Road, Princeton University Press chapter 1); Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse The Wheel And Language., Princeton University Press chapters 14 & 15 File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png

I bet you'll like this template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We usually assume the beginning of Vedic Period from 1700 BCE, what if we include only those maps that shows the geography after 1700 BCE? Current one duplicates other 2 templates. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If we only include those maps that show the geography after 1700 BCE, the continuity between Kurgan-Andronovo-Vedic is completely lost. And some repetition won't harm the "out of India" adherents (okay, it will harm, but some repetition may help them to get the point). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then title should be changed to something else, like "From Kurgan culture to Vedic culture" or something else, but I don't think that it is even mainstream theory when it is about the origins of Vedic culture. See [3]-[4]Bladesmulti (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I was also doubting about "origins". Ehm, would you also know something more catchy? NB: the short title "Spread of Vedic culture" did not cover the preceding part, namely the origins. ~Interesting topic in itself, by the way: the interaction between proto-Indo-Iranians and the BMAC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied to Template talk:Spread of Vedic culture#Title. To be continued there for the template itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: (Sorry, it has been a busy day.) Maps are always nice, and these ones are beautiful. But, why a template? Do we need this bunch of maps to go in many pages? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Nou ja, "many"; several. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How are you doing? Are #Je Suis Charlie T-shirts there in your campus? I wish to make two points, when avoidable it is better to keep comments chronological instead of commenting in middle (in the context of BJP/GA1). Also my objection is not personal, review by involved editor is discouraged in general to avoid setting a bad precedent. It is always better if an uninvolved editor does a GA review, that helps get fresh perspective in improving the article and also increases the credibility of the review. You may not deny that you have edited very closely with the nominator, I have made a comment there that you have much lesser edit count than me but much higher interaction with the nominator, it may not be attributed to the phenomenon of editing in same topic area. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My appreciation for your edits is growing and growing! Good and helpful comments on the migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found Mallory: tab reviews. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am surprised that the Google couldn't find it for me. (Or I couldn't think of the right search key!) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not confirmed whether the issue was under the Himachal dhwani and those dates of citations are incorrect, it is not 15 January, but 8 January, the first day of this news. This all was added under 2014, but not 2015. IP's changes were not bad, but these few errors I had thought of looking, but later. After some days, news[5] was more detailed, and that is what we have to mention. Not just about Kareena Kapoor's morphed picture, it looks less of a community reaction, but more of a gossip/promotion because it is not really encyclopedic or it is telling about their actual aim. There are many representation of Love Jihad, and because this time it resembled/included a photo of Kareena Kapoor it serves no bigger purpose. Finally VHP confirmed that there were no forced conversion in Himachal Pradesh, so did the cops.[6] The drive is going(that's future) to be more about cautioning, the present form of this sentence seems to be speaking like they are attempting to convert. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony is cool! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! We also need to look at Kuzmina, who seems to have made a decisive difference. That will probably complicate things a lot further. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Who's Kuzmina? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I noticed that one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[7] Where did you read[8] the word prehistoric or it is stating it as a fact? Bladesmulti (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Indo-Iranian tribes" were in pre-historic times, prior to 1000 BC. If that is all you are contesting, I am happy to delete it, but I don't see how it helps. We want to emphasize that this meaning was in long times past. Or, do you want to continue using it that way? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

a form arya, author has only mentioned that he believes that Iran derives from Arya, when it derives from aryana and it is from Avesta that were written no later than 6th century BCE. 6th century BCE was already an historical period. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The exact sentence is: The Sanskrit word arya-, the source of the English word, was the self-designation of the Vedic Indic people and has a congnate in Iranian *arya-, where it is also a self-designation. I agree that 600 BC is "historic time," but both Avesta and Rig Veda were composed well before then. By 600 BC, we have "Classical Sanskrit" where arya didn't mean an ethnic group. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Avesta's composition is mostly dated from 600 BCE, but if you want to highlight the old times, you can just say ancient times, and not prehistoric. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fortson, IV says, "the dates of [Zoraster's] life are unknown, although linguistic and comparative evidence points to late second millennium BC." (p. 205) That is pre-historic. Actually, anything that we can't date precisely is by definition pre-historic. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If the citation is not saying that they were pre-historic times, we cannot say that either. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Yes, we can. We just use the normal sense of the words. Prehistory refers to the period of human existence before the availability of those written records with which recorded history begins. It makes sense if you were quibbling about Iron age being called prehistoric, but this is before iron! Should we @Joshua Jonathan: to see if he agrees? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

On another note, you deleted a reference to Witzel this morning on Indigenous Aryans saying that there was no mention of Golwalkar in the book. But Google books says there are 7 references in the book. So, you must have misread something. I am reverting this deletion too. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can insert it only if he has said that whole thing. For years there was not even one citation for that whole quotation. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph was removed after discussion with Joshua Jonathan on his talk, because Witzel was talking about the revisionism of Ashokan script, not any Aryan theories, and he wasn't mentioning Elst, Frawley or anyone there. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will check. It will be helpful if we use article talk pages for these discussions so that everybody gets to know what is happening! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: The quotation is from Bergund, not from Witzel. The statements attributed to Witzel are quite well-known facts. There is nothing controversial there. I would have liked to read his article, but I will need to make a trip to the library to get it. The Bergund article is available online. I can rewrite the ugly quote as normal text once I have read the article and absorbed it. But, I don't see this as particularly urgent. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. When reverting, please also note when you add new text. This edit-summary was confusing: "Reverting inexplicable blanking by User:Bladesmulti this morning." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Well, I couldn't actually "revert" because of all the other edits you did later in the day. I manually put back all the deleted text, and noticed that one of those blocks was deleted by you rather than Blades. I enclosed it in comments, but Blades came back and deleted the commented block too. I guess I will have to make a trip to the library to double check what Witzel says in the Rama's Realm. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense intended. Checking the sources is highly appreciated. by the way, Witzel is a good read. Surprising that opponents refer to "The Indo-Aryan Controversy," and yet seem to be blissfully unaware of Witzel's contribution. Just like they don't seem to know what the IAMt is actually about. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The "opponents" are essentially Golwalkarites, who blindly believe "Hindus have been always here, from times immemorial." If anybody says otherwise, they are just taken to be Hindu-bashers. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The North and South Indian populations date from 40,000 to 60,000 years ago and have no genetic admixture since. This was determined by a large Harvard study published in a top journal. Also, if you read "Breaking India" by Malhotra you will know there is a continuous tradition of Hindu bashing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Indigenous Aryans are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Sorry, I don't agree. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, and a thorough understanding of what kind of sources exist and how they relate is essential for writing good articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts, and I think it's not a "general discussion of the topic", but relevant to the discussions that are going on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. The thread is Tendentious_editing_by_some_editors_Vedic_Period_-_Neutrality_of_which_is_disputed.The discussion is about the topic Vedic Period. Thank you. —Indoscope (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a good guess. Kak was a good addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a very good guess. Gosh, my arm hurts; worked so long today... All the best to you, and thanks for your comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I already thought so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Those Vedic datings are, ehm...., peculiar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Printable! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you added a ref twice in the sources section. Was this an accident, or are there formatting subtleties that I am missing? Also, would you mind me copy-editing your additions? At this point the difference in style stands out a little, methinks. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I have duplicated it in the "Further reading" section because it has a nice chapter on the RSS in politics. Perhaps I should highlight the chapter to make it clear. As for my text, I can copyedit once again, but I am afraid you will need to do a pass to bring it up to your standards! I also need to update the following section on the BJP to clarify the RSS links. But it will probably be next weekend that I will get time. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started CEing, will finish up later. Just wanted to make it clear that there was nothing "wrong" with your text, it's just stylistically different from mine, and since I wrote most of the article, it stands out a little, is all. BTW, you may want to consider archiving your talk page.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm nearly done. Quick clarification before I deal with the last couple of sentences; when you write that the "National Executive council" banned dual membership, it was the NEC of the Janata party, was it not? And wasn't this decision triggerred by the poor showing in the 1980 elections? I'm travelling, and haven't the book in front of me...Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes, it was the NEC of the Janata party. And, no, it wasn't triggered by the loss of elections.

• The dual membership issue was what broke apart the Janata party (which Guha fails to acknowledge). BLD left because of it. Morarji Desai was trying to support the former Jan Sanghis but, after the loss of elections, he was finished and the rest of the Janata Party said we won't take it any more. This returned the former Jan Sanghis to "political untouchability." (Jaffrelot's words.)
• I am not sure if you appreciate how RSS was behind everything. I used the words "in the image of the RSS" for Jana Sangh precisely to capture that. The RSS faction of Jana Sangh ousted M. C. Sharma, neutralised all the politicians, and took over the Jana Sangh. The "legacy of Syama Prasad Mookerjee" was ended (in Kingshuk Nag's words). The remaining party was just the RSS faction, which adopted the "millenarial programme" of the RSS, i.e., long-term sanghatan, and appointed the RSS people at all levels to build up the Jana Sangh. Andersen and Damle report that 90% of the office-bearers of the Jana Sangh were RSS swayamsevaks, rising to 100% at the State and National levels. So, Jana Sangh truly became a wing of the RSS. It wasn't just the case of Noorani "regarding" it as such.
• This wing of the RSS is what merged into the Janata party. But it might be that the other constituents of the Janata Party didn't initially understand how RSS-dominated Jana Sangh was. When it became clear, they started making noises and demanding that the former Jana Sanghis should quit the RSS in order to become proper members of the Janata Party. The Jana Sanghis didn't agree and the Party fell apart. Political commentators in India by and large believe that the ambitions of Charan Singh broke the party, but this was just the spin that Indira Gandhi came up with. Charan Singh might have been ambitious, but it was clear that he wasn't either a Hindu traditionalist, like the Congress-O, or a Hindu nationalist, like the Jana Sangh. When he formed a government with the support of Congress-I, he might have believed that he was a forming a secular alliance. But, Mrs. G just made use of him and discarded him. She put her own interests ahead of the country's.

Even though Guha is certainly good, he is either trying to avoid controversial issues or he is painting too broad a picture to worry about these details. If you look at any authoritative source on the Jana Sangh and the BJP, they would tell you all these things. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Page 301 of Jaffrelot 1996: Satyendra Narain Sinha, a member of the NEC, demanded that the ex-Jana Sanghis should dissociate themselves from the RSS, citing the article 5 of the Janata Party constitution. The date was 19 August 1977. Morarji Desai papered over the issue by calling RSS a "cultural organisation." Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on the article talk, just because our two discussion have now essentially merged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(Talk-page therapy) For a long time, I have been listening to Gulshan Ara Syed's rendition of Hato Kaheko Jhooti. She is a Bangladeshi singer who moved to Pakistan and, for whatever reason, did not particularly shine afterwards. Well, yesterday, I tried to look into where this song came from. I find that it was from Ustad Faiyaz Khan, a legendary singer, whose gharana goes back to Tansen. And, then I find that his tomb in Baroda was vandalised during the 2006 Vadodara riots.^[1][2] What a disgrace! This is not the kind of India that Kautilya wanted to found, is it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

DS believed that Excipient0 is the sock of Nangparbat.Cosmic  Emperor  11:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't help there as I never ran into Nangparbat. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush and Kautilya Sorry for troubling you again, but in no way this User can be neutral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PakSol --Cosmic  Emperor  12:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The category "American journalists" is designed as a container category; articles are better placed in subcategories where applicable. It needs periodic cleaning out more than anything else. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Roger. No problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I pulled your name from WP:FRS at random but I was wondering if you could take a look at this RFC. I think we need a third opinion on the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I find that you removed a chapter from page with heading "Importance". Could you please enlighten me why ? 59.91.222.244 (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm giving you link of the news which shows perception of people regarding edits on Wikipedia. [9], must read if possible. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Old news, but good article. All of us need think more pro-actively about how to make Wikipedia a more encouraging place for women. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

		WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014 Third Place
		To Kautilya3, who came third place in WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014! The results can be viewed here (And you thought you had a bad score). ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the message and the concerns. But you are wrong to assume this. If you check my last edit, I re-named "Indo-Bangladesh enclaves" to "India-Bangladesh enclaves." "Indo" is a prefix that means lots of different things.

I only change words to avoid confusion. Thanks for warning me about the sanctions, I appreciate that. Thank you.

But you are wrong to assume that have a single purpose on Wiki. Have a nice day.--Boxman88 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boxman88: Thanks for responding. I think we can put this issue behind us. However, I note that you are continuing to make edits without writing any edit summaries. This is not proper. Not only does it make it harder to monitor your edits (all of us monitor the pages on our watch lists), but it would be also wrong when you change existing material without justification. So, can I urge you to write edit summaries? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No I wrote edit summaries in many edits. I just thought it's confusing to add "India" instead of "Indian subcontinent" and "Indo-" instead of Indian on Indian topics because Indo can mean more than just Indian. But I've edited many pages besides topics on India so, it's not one purpose. I'll make in effort to make edit summaries more often.--Boxman88 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And also can I ask you the Hindi spelling of shashlik? Because the Urdu spelling exists but since it's also eaten in India, can I ask you for the Hindi spelling so I may add it? In Hindi alphabet please. Thank you--Boxman88 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant the edits you made today, e.g., at Anti-Pakistan sentiment, didn't have edit summaries. I haven't checked everything you edited. But if you are writing edit summaries at other places, that is fine. Thanks. As for the Hindi spellings, I really don't know how to type in Devnagari or any other Indian language for that matter. I am English-bound. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A good step in resolving that conflict by starting a DRN! Ping Human correctly! And I have replied at the thread, let's hope it's successful. Good job at getting the page protected. But why do you think that I demand the restoration of the direct quote and the removal of EU report? Faizan (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Faizan, thanks for your agreement. I am glad. I didn't realize you meant "bowdlerize" in a positive way. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that edit on Babri Masjid because it seemed like it was Hindutva and it was an IP. I'm not opposed to reviewing stuff, but it's Ramadan since last night and this is when the ... difficult people, shall we say? ... come out of the woodwork. They come out on both sides during holy periods, but tbh in Ramadan is when we get a ton of angry Islamophobes.

I worry about tone on Babri Masjid, as it was a particularly horrendous moment of one-sided Hindutva communal violence. We need to make sure it doesn't get watered down any more than it already is, no matter how awful the communal violence was that was directed the other way (i.e. the 1993 Mumbai attacks et. al.), and people really work to water it down. Ogress _smash! 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, no worries. I love all the work you do. As for the Babri Masjid, I have all the pages on my watch list, and I know both the sides of the dispute quite well. We shouldn't brush aside genuine Hindu grievances because that only gives fillip to the Hindutva forces. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up that are you are at WP:3RR at Caste system in India. You really want to avoid reverting again for a couple of days (and hopefully it won't be needed) as any stray admin that walks by will likely blind block you with your next, the 4th. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a discussion on the recent issues regarding WP:Caste system In India in ANI and specifically reported suspicious behavior of concerted behavior of a group of editors including you. Have a look. AB^Talk 08:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You are just wasting everybody's time. I would recommend that you withdraw the ANI issue and, instead, spend your time reading and understanding Wikipedia policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wrote those. Policies.. ( Now that's in lighter vain, don't report me for this! :-o )) AB^Talk 10:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya, as i understand full citations are not a requirement. I have seen several wikipedia articles with short citations. I had given the book title and author name in the edit, and here is a wikipedia page about citing sources which describes how to give short citations. This business of short citations concerns the two books i had cited. With respect to the two online articles i cited, only the name of author, date, and name of publication are missing but they are also missing in many other references i have seen in wikipedia articles. I also wish you could have had the decency and courtesy to make a request on my talk page to give additional details with respect to the citations instead of removing the edits altogether. Soham321 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Of the two online articles i gave as reference, one (The Economic Times article) seems to be an editorial because it does not mention any author.Soham321 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Soham, a revert was the easiest thing I could do, both for myself and you. All you had to do was to do undo my revert along with full citations. You were editing a B-class article, and you are required to maintain the current citation style as well as its quality level in doing your edits. When experienced users do a poor job, we often accommodate it and clean up after them. But you have been here long enough to be able to look after yourself. If you don't know how to add full citations, I am happy to help. But please don't expect me or anybody else to add in the citation information that you have neglected to add. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you see the Nehru article, you will note that the references 61 and 62 (books by Ghose and Kopstein) are adopting the short citation style (these are references to books). These references were not given by me but by other editors of the article. So you are wrong when you claim i was not maintaining the current citation style. Since i have added the more complete citations now, i obviously know how to do so, But the point is that are you now going to keep deleting my edits if i use the short citation style for books in articles where this style has been adopted by other editors editing the main article? Is this not an instance of disruptive editing on your part?Soham321 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you see that Ghose 1991 is a hyperlink? Can you click on it and see where it takes you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I did not notice Ghose 1991 is a hyperlink. As of now the only problematic reference i could see is reference 45 (Yasmin Khan); there seems to be some error in this reference. At any rate, i withdraw my earlier comments. I agree that the citation style ought to be maintained throughout the article in a consistent manner. Soham321 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, so we are friends again? I know that getting reverted feels bad. I don't do it lightly. When we get time, we should fix whatever missing citations there are in important articles. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[10]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I know nothing about the subject. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If your wondering, this discussion ended a long time ago. I forgot to reply to his last statement though. Nonetheless, the user was a sock himself so it truly did end. AcidSnow (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for following up! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it will be better if you make one last comment regarding Kashmir conflict DRN. Probably thread is going to be closed as "failed", User talk:Steven Zhang#Kashmir Conflict. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya, you wrote on the Jawaharlal Nehru talk page that you have a physical copy of the book India as a Secular State. This being the case, why don't you consider contributing to the Synopsis section of India as a Secular State? I have so far given the synopsis for the first two parts out of the 7 parts in this book. Please consider giving the synopsis for some of the remaining parts. Soham321 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have the book yourself? I have a copy borrowed from the library, and have looked at certain portions that were cited here. I haven't read the whole book, or even a substantial portion of it. It is very difficult to write a good synopsis of a deep, scholarly work like this without spending a significant amount of time. A much better strategy is to look through the book reviews, which generally contain a good summary of the contents. The Galanter and Flint reviews would be the first things to look at, because Smith gave them a rejoinder. If you don't have access to JSTOR, I can send you copies of the reviews. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I do have a physical copy of the book, otherwise i would not have been able to give the synopsis of the first three (out of seven) sections of the book. I prefer not to rely on reading reviews of the book to give the synopsis of the book. Smith's rejoinder would invariably contain additional material (that is not present in the book) since he was responding to criticism of the book. Soham321 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting article that places Malhotra c.s. in a context: McComas Taylor (2011), Myhtology Wars: The Indian Diapsora, 'Wendy's Children" and the Struggle for the Hindu Past, Asian Studies Review, June 2011, Vol. 35. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember reading this last summer when the Doniger book came into news. Prior to that, I didn't know much about RM other than the fact that he was funding Hinduism research. But, yes, attacking Doniger was probably his first project. He then moved on to grander things... - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, Thank you very much for your kind inspiration.

How do i go ahead from here.

Ok understood by using your links in the original message,

Thanks Again

Regards Abbas Banu Vohra Abbasbanuvohra (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abbasbanuvohra:, welcome again to Wikipedia. Indeed, the welcome message on your talk page gives introductory information. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me or Human3015, who has given your welcome message. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

...see Mubarak Ali Gandhi before it goes as {{db-hoax}}. —SpacemanSpiff 18:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Too late, too late! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't miss all that much. It was just a one-liner saying that he was the "father-in-law" of Indira Gandhi. As hoax as it gets! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits? I am still in process of writing in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. I am extremely well aware of WP policies and you seem to be acting against them. Please refrain from doing so and give others a chance to present their facts.User:Magicalsaumy (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Magalsaumy: The sources should be provided whenever edits are made. You are saying the connection with Haraxvaiti may have been speculative, but who is saying that? There is no point adding such a judgement without an authentic source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The etymology "she with many lakes" is already present in the Article before my edits. I have provided a source that in Avestan "Vairi" means pond or lake. It logically follows from here that connection with Haraxvaiti may have been speculative. I have not used unencylopedic language that it IS necessarily speculative or it is false. Please note that I have been an editor to WP since the very beginning and mentioning such logic with references is a standard practice done everywhere in WP articles. Nowhere in Wikipedia is each and every sentence and phrase sourced with citation. A WP article is not an academic journal article. We are all human beings and we all use our brain and mind. I am a Student of Historical Linguistics myself and I know very well how false etymologies are used to drive leftist or rightist political ideologies and purported histories. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this issue is extremely contentious, and everything does need a reliable source. You cannot label scholars' conclusions as "speculations" without other reliable sources saying so, and you have to attribute them with inline attributions. I am surprised that you don't know this since you appear to be an experienced editor. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"It logically follows" - this sounds as WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? Several articles in Wikipedia have gone bad over the years because of Leftist self-proclaimed keepers of history, who will not allow any WP facts that they don't like under one excuse or another. Wikipedias neutral point of view is reinterpreted with a leftist bias. Many Historians are often leftists themselves because they are bitter about the fact that in the modern Capitalist world, they dont have any value. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me to be called a "leftist" or a "rightist" (and I have been called both). But you should note that you should not cast aspersions on other editors. When an admin analyses your editing behaviour, it would count as another negative mark against you. All the best!- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Last week we were Hindutvas; now we're back at the anti-Hindutva forces again! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. Are your archives still functioning? I could try to update/change the bot you're using, if you like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I can't get them to work. I just archived a bunch of stuff. Your help in fixing the magic incantations would be great! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't load your page yesterday when I first came by, so I'm an interested party and fixed it. The problem was you had "Use talk:" instead of "User talk:", at least that's what it looked like. If you have a 31 day old thread left, you can wait for it to archive and check. —SpacemanSpiff 19:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a million! I should have known better. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit here "but the perpetrators have not been prosecuted and remain at large" is not helpful. You say "This is not contentious, there is a link to the main article in the body." but you do not indicate what you consider to be the 'main article' or where the link can be found.
A better course would be to add a reference to the source immediately after the contentious phrase, making sure of course that the source does support the phrase. Apuldram (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Apuldram: The lead is an overview of the article. We only add citations for contentious issues. If you disagree then please free to add a citation. You can find plenty in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots page. In either case, I don't see the need to remove the content. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is you who wish to retain the contentious phrase, it is up to you to cite the source. I would prefer to remove the phrase, which has a pov ring to it. Apuldram (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's great now. Apuldram (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kaytilya, if you are interested then review article Hindu Marriage Act, one user is keep on adding essay like blog writing on that article. He reverted me after one month. Its long term edit war. Moreover, if you see his edit summaries, he himself accepts that he is writing some content from blogs. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi do you think jammu and kashmir is situated in india? Plz think again. You are providing wrong information to others. If we can edit this page independently so, it doesn't mean that you can write on the page what you want. Search before writing please thanks Huzaifa Sattar (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yesterday I reported this Huzaifa Sattar for his continuous disruptive editing on Jammu and Kashmir but admin didn't block him calling it as "content dispute" and he said "there are some sources which says Jammu and Kashmir is part of Pakistan so try dispute resolution". Just because that admin was not knowing depth of this issue this user is still unblocked. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: Huzaifa Sattar self-reverted at 28 july 2015]; his message was re-inserted by another user at 29 july. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

He should have self-reverted himself when he commented on this talk page and no one replied him. If someone replies him according to his comment then he should not delete his comment. This is not article space, this is discussion space. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  04:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically you're correct, but his intention was good. He could also have apologized. What matters is that he has shown a change of behaviour. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This opinion-article may be of interest to you: Siddhartha Mishra, Indians do not choose to be plagiarists, we are taught to be. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the thesis that Indians have a systemic problem of "plagiarism" of various kinds is quite well-known. The way the Bollywood movies plagiarise is quite notorious. The Indian system has also made a principle of rejecting product patents so that Indians could copy products at will, and leftists have supported it, quite vocally, through various rationalisations. But I don't think we were ever "taught" to plagiarise. People really choose to do it. In any case, RM doesn't have this excuse. He is a naturalized American and made a success of it. He knows quite well the issues of intellectual property, copyright and so on. I think he did it basically because he couldn't help it. Borrowing a sentence here and there would have seemed ok in the beginning, but once he started doing it, he didn't know where to stop. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow WPedians. I'm not an expert on cross-cultural issues relevant to plagiarism, but I'm intuitively inclined to agree with Kautilya's remarks. I'd also add that the capacity for internet checking has uncovered lots of hitherto hidden plagiarism in the west -- as reflected even in some articles in WP Signpost, such as this Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Analysis. (And at the student level, we should also remember the continuing challenge of ensuring that Western students, too, do not plagiarize downloaded essays from the internet - there have even been specialized websites).

More broadly, it seems one should view issues of plagiarism/non-plagiarism as contextualized by how a culture views the words used in its major cultural reference points. My understanding is that in oral cultures (including Homeric Greece), every telling of a major epic (e.g., the Odyssey) is unique, because a storyteller (bard) will tell it in ways that suit a particular audience. I've seen something similar in how many stories in Indian spiritual traditions are told in widely varying variants depending on the context and audience needs. On the other hand, amazing oral "technologies" were created for transmitting highly stabilized version of the Vedas down through many many centuries. But this is extraordinary and there was a rather circumscribed canon. In as much as Indians have been in some ways slow to assimilate useful features of western norms against plagiarism, I suspect that one big piece of the explanation is likely to be that until recently, so many were immersed in an enormously rich oral culture in which stories were told and retold without restriction in a thousand and one variants, as happens in many oral cultures. At least that's my guess. --Presearch (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've noriced that the term "plagiarized" seems to have acquired a somewhat different meaning for Indians, referring to the adaption of ideas from other cultures, without mentioning so. Ironically, RM himself seems to be doing so (double ironically, actually, given the recent allegations):

"The central thesis which I seek to topple asserts that Swami Vivekananda plagiarized Western secular and Christian ideas and then recast them in Sanskrit terminology to claim Indian origins for them."

It's from Indra's Net p.9 (epub). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, any form of intellectual theft is "plagiarism." So there is nothing unusual about RM's use of "plagiarise" in that context. Presearch hints that there might be something in Indian traditions that makes plagiarism acceptable. I don't think there is. Here is an article that goes into the issue in depth.^[1] - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's World Sanskrit Conference article had been unedited since 2014 when I visited there a few minutes ago. So I made edits noting that the 2015 conference had already occurred, and that a delegation of 250 Indian scholars had gone, in what The Economic Times called a "display of soft power". It appears that the 2015 (sixteenth) conference was different than any of the previous ones, setting a new tone. You can find the academic program online (I cited it), and RM was listed as one of the opening-day plenary session speakers. An Indian government representative gave the inaugural address, in Sanskrit. There is a fair bit of press coverage. Especially in view of RM's forthcoming book on Sanskrit, doubtless to draw attention and controversy, I think WP should expand its coverage of the 2015 conference, even if previous triannual conferences receive little individual attention. Whether this expanded 2015 coverage shoudl be retained within the same page linked above, or on a new page, is an issue that could be decided over time, when it becomes clear how much our WP:RS allow us to say in an article. I'd encourage others to take up where I've left off. Regards --Presearch (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Vanamonde93's edit because the prior edit was verbatim from NY times article. Van's reason for revert was that Indian Mujahideen did not claim teh responsibility. I am not sure where he got that information from but the article states what the previous editor had stated verbatim. The relevance is obvious. The sub section discusses the responsibility of Malegaon blasts. This is a removal of sourced content by Vanamonde93 which I removed. thanks! --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that IM claimed responsibility for Malegaon, but for some prior attacks. So it is not relevant. Being sourced is not the issue. There was already a long-standing relevance tag on it. So Vanamonde removed it, rightly in my opnion. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Anjali das gupta#Sources: A good faith editor who is trying to add sources but is unable to distinguish good from bad. I tried to explain with some examples from her edits yesterday, but apparently it wasn't clear enough. Maybe you can give it a go? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will give it a try. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3, just look at references I collected. If you dont mind can you update the Bahmani Sultanate article ?

So according to all these the claim that farasta or what ever he is heard a "story" about Brahmin. However, Hasan Gangu claimed to be decedent of Persian origin.

Muslim Architecture of South India: The Sultanate of Ma'bar and the Traditions of Maritime Settlers on the Malabar and Coromandel Coasts (Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Goa) (Routledge Studies in South Asia) Page Number 27

By Mehrdad Shokoohy

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kqhddUCZ_BQC&pg=PA334&dq=Firishta+hasan+gangu+slave&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIs-3B6ZyGxwIVA42UCh0SDw_N#v=onepage&q=hasan%20gangu&f=false

Historical Dictionary of Medieval India - by Iqtidar Alam Khan - Page number 20,21

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iGSKTttoa3IC&pg=PA20&dq=hasan+gangu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBzgKahUKEwi9kqKNoIbHAhXKFJQKHcYXCdQ#v=onepage&q=hasan%20gangu&f=false

Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture - Page 77

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Qi2TgAAazZwC&pg=PA77&dq=hasan+gangu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBGoVChMI8v2alp6GxwIVySSUCh1DuAFW#v=onepage&q=hasan%20gangu&f=false

The African Dispersal in the Deccan: From Medieval to Modern Times - By Shanti Sadiq Ali - Page number 39,40,41 https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-3CPc22nMqIC&pg=PA39&dq=Ismail+Mukh&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwB2oVChMIgeq186SGxwIVBV6mCh3JmAkd#v=onepage&q=Ismail%20Mukh&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabahmani (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Anjali das gupta (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey greetings kautyla, I would like to know if I am going to edit something which is a part of biographies,then they are only available to us on wiki pages ...so I can justify them.But anyways thanks for Information dear.Anjali das gupta (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anjali das gupta: Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies don't allow you to base an article on Internet sources (if that is what you mean by "wiki pages"). WP:RS says If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. If you can tell me, which biography page you are trying to work on, I can try to see if we can find reliable sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Gurjara-Pratihara

added a link pointing to Pala

Kannauj

added a link pointing to Avanti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the initial pages of this dissertation but can see some potentially useful information concerning the Travancore Rebellion. Can you see the first few pages? I need to determine if it is a PhD and also the name of the author, who is Steven somebody. I know that the thesis was accepted and so it can be used if it is indeed for a PhD, although I'm hoping that it may have formed the basis for a subsequent book. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, it says

"The Foundation of British Strength:"
National Identity and the British Common Soldier
by
Steven Schwamenfeld
PhD degree awarded: Fall 2007
The Florida State University

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That will do nicely. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It gives me this version, which is complete. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

For years I have come across things published by Northern Book Centre, which claims to be an outfit specialising in publication of "scholarly reference books". I've recently found this, which appears to have had ICHR support also. It appears to be well-footnoted and thoughtful in its analysis but I am struggling to find out more about the author, M. T. Narayanan. Could it be this chap, even though the book is not mentioned? What do you think in terms of WP:RS, bearing in mind that there have been accusations of politicisation of Indian history writing/publishing?- Sitush (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, the preface of the book says that it is based on the author's Ph.D. thesis at the University of Calicut. The CV says that he got a Ph.D. in 1991. So they match. If the thesis was selected for publication by ICHR, I would guess that it was found to be of high quality. The serious politicisation of the ICHR is only happening now. For a 2003 publication, there should be no concerns. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks again for your help. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: [11] and this discussion [12] and provide your input. There is a cited content dispute I am having [13] and I feel you can help with some clarification for this topic. I looked up editors who have worked on Hinduism topics and found you.

Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my edits. The NPOV issue was there. Searchpow (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See this regarding tehelka and Congress connection. http://indiafacts.co.in/%EF%BB%BF-tehelka-is-the-upa-of-media/ Searchpow (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Searchpow, the welcome message I gave you had links to "Five pillars of Wikipedia," which is compulsory reading for every new editor, especially for those editing contentious areas of Hindu nationalism. You will also find there a link to Neutral Point of View (or NPOV). Please check that to find out what NPOV means. It doesn't mean what you think means.

As for the Tehelka-Congress connection, please feel free to find reliable sources that establish such links, and add them to Tehelka's page. Indiafacts is a blog site and so not a reliable source. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr Mauryan, what's a good substitute for the world popular (meaning in the sense of mass people, not popularity) in Wikipedia?--Akbar the Great (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of any easy substitute word. You can try something like "widely believed," "widely felt," etc. If you can tell me the context, I can perhaps think of something better. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya, thank you for the warm welcome. I have seen you in the Nair article before.Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Please be sure to read through some of the Wikipedia policies and ask me whenever you have any questions. On the whole, you need to get used to using reliable sources instead of stating your own ideas ("OR" as we call it here). All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, i'll keep that in mind with future edits as I didn't exactly take that into account with my first ones. But really, thank you! Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There is discussion involving you at WP:DRN [14]. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  12:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siachen Glacier. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting for your reply there. Let's discuss the issue so that it may be resolved through the survey. Faizan (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Sorry, that article fell off my watch list accidentally. In any case, I can't do much to help there, because even the result of the previous RfC is being questioned. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest that you ask an admin for help, perhaps NeilN. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: I got a ping from Legobot for your RfC today, almost 10 days after you filed the RfC. Any idea why the Legobot is pinging today? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

At least Legobot is taking notice of that RfC, Legobot is a bot, bot can't understand "validity" of the RfC, we need "Human" for that. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "British Pakistanis". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 August 2015.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of urban areas by population. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you wrote: "Hi Jyotsna, I am afraid I have to revert your edit to the Sarasvati river page, even though it was very carefully done, because your source is not a scientist or aracheologist. So, he does not qualify as a reliable source for the subject at hand. If you have better sources that corroborate this information, please feel free to reinstate along with such sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)"

i am sorry but this author even if his writtings are those of a philosopher, made archeological researches in his youth. I don't know what are your knowledge on this particular subject to decide that those vague and no substantiated claims on the present page are worther to be transmitted. Anyway i won't try again to involve myself on that. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyotsna Devi (talk • contribs)

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning British Pakistanis, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Pakistanis, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Anjali das gupta (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey greetings kautilya

Sorry for bothering you again.But this message is regarding the disruptive editing.can u please explain me what is exactly disruptive meaning for wikipedia and you guyz are talking about which edits.Please guide me for the same so that mistake couldn't be repeated again.

Thank you waiting for your positive response Anjali das gupta (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anjali, the message you got was a level-3 vandalism warning (I think), which has links to both "WP:disruptive editing" and "WP:vandalism." Please read through those pages.

Checking the log of Mean as custard's edits, I notice that he reverted five of your edits [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and then gave you the warning. Looking through them, I notice that you are still having trouble finding reliable sources. Note that you can't use random internet sites and blogs anywhere on Wikipedia. Only published sources can be used, such as books or journal articles. If you keep on using unreliable sources to edit pages, it would be considered "disruptive editing" (because you are wasting other editors' time they need to spend cleaning up), and you can be blocked or banned from editing. So, you do need to start paying attention to the guidelines of reliable sources. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I'll take a look. Probably not until morning, as I'm off to bed shortly - was just finishing up a run of AWB before going to sleep. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A cursory glance suggests to me that it's a matter of overcategorization, mostly - is that correct, or am I missing something? (I rarely edit ancient history on here, so I'm not entirely certain of the category tree.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, it was mostly a question of not knowing what he is trying to do. He seems to have created a Category:Bronze Age Asia, which doesn't seem that great. It would have been better to have separate categories for China, South Asia and Central Asia. Note that he didn't include Near East anyway. But if you look at this edit [20], he also removed * for the main entry, replaced Category:Bronze Age by Category:Bronze Age Asia, but then re-added Category:Bronze Age again. So it isn't clear what he is trying to do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree - I'm kind of having a hard time figuring out what's going on myself. Thanks for the reinforcement. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)