Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

On Chinese guardian lions page, theres images of Ashoka emblem and other lion sculpture from India which i'm pretty sure are unrelated to chinese guradian lions, should it be removed? 59.93.78.181 (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the article talk page. If nobody responds in a couple of days, please feel free to remove all foreign references. Mention "Deleting unsourced content" or some such as the edit summary. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Who would have thought that Mar4d was a sock! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one! Didn't expect that either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, could you please add this to the Diwali page? It should be added to the Australia section of the page. This is what it is:

On the Australian external territory of Christmas Island, Deepavali is a celebrated annual holiday alongside many other celebrations common in Australia, Malaysia as well as local celebrations of the island.^[1][2]

The original users I had asked to add it in seem to have ignored me as they never replied to any of my messages. Could you please add it in? Thank you (121.220.85.127 (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satish Chandra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R. S. Sharma. 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) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Azov Battalion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've come across a great recent essay on pre-Islamic Arabia in this volume, written by a specialist of archaeology and synthesizing various sources, which I'm currently in the process of mining for more detail. I'm assuming that you've seen my reply in Talk and decided against moving back the Hawting passage, so I've integrated it in the added discussion. (This is msubotin, having moved to a new account) Eperoton (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eperoton, It looks good. Amazing source! I am happy with Hawting being integrated into the new discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just fyi, AP once alerted Maunus (of all people) about ARBIPA, and was also notified himself by Darkness shines under his previous username (which I don't want to link here, but easily found at WP:ARBIPA, so he is well aware of the sanctions, and can be sanctioned for behavior prior to your notification). Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3

Don't you think this user, called Vormeph and that other strange dude we communicated both with recently, Triptoeminefield, are remarkebly similar in the way that they edit a wide array of articles, make tons of unliked/unsourced changes, and are usually in disputes with users, and collect a lot of warnings? Look at their edit summaries and talk pages, might you have the time; looks awfully similar, IMHO.

Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about the topics to tell the similarity. But, yes, the practice of contesting and deleting content seems similar. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Indian-Subcontinent and Central Asia makes it easier to understand rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan, it's already stated in the study above and in the quote itself. I have only simplified it for easier understanding. 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.72.213 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, you can't do that. Direct quotes are sacrosanct. Even adding emphasis is not allowed. You can add wikilinks without changing the text, but some readers have complained that even that distracts from the actual quote. (Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, when you open a discussion, you need to wait for consensus before redoing the edit. Otherwise you would be WP:edit warring.- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Regarding quote, it would be a better to unquote it then and simplify the study for better understanding as they moved into what is now Afghanistan & Pakistan as well, so having Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia (as mentioned in the study) would be a better idea. 59.93.72.213 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One can always remove a quote and paraphrase it, provided the other editors of the page think it is acceptable. But still one cannot modify the meaning of the text. If the text is talking about India, and you change it to Indian subcontinent, it would amount to original research. I don't think the discussion in the article is great. But, genetics literature is remarkably hard to understand, and the specialists who can write about it are quite limited. Your best is to raise a question on the article talk page along the lines of "why is a quote about solely India being included while the article is about South Asia?" or something like that. Somebody knowledgeable about the subject might pay attention to it. You don't have to edit every article yourself just because you are allowed to. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I will make a post about this topic on article talk-page. There will be no change in meaning of the text, just Indian subcontinent and Central Asia would be added to simplify it (as also mentioned in the source). 117.192.217.67 (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like your IP address is constantly changing. This is no good for discussions because we have no idea who we are speaking to. If you want to make long-term edits, it is better to create an an account.

"Indian subcontinent" and "Central Asia" cannot be added because they misrepresent the source. We have already been through this before. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant by removing quote and paraphrase the sentence which is already given in the source as migration from Central Asia and into Indian Subcontient (Afghan, Pak, India and Nepal). There is no misrepresentation of source here, it's only being simplified. Mywikicommons (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That paraphrase misrepresents the source, as I have already said multiple times. So, no you can't do that.

If you want to talk about the migration into the "Indian subcontinent," this source is no good. You need to find some other source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Mywikicommons (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the Philosophy on Indian people page, see the Italians, Germans, and French people page for example has section dedicated to philosophy, covers all importance aspects that shaped their respective culture. We should add it, philosophy has been important part of Indian civilization. We should also furtherer add information about Indian political philosophy in 20th century such as Gandhian socialism, Practical idealism, Integral humanism (India), Nehruism, Trusteeship (Gandhism) it will be simple information on basics. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about these edits to Indian people? If other people pages discuss philosophy, it does not immediately imply that we should too. It depends on various factors. For one, Indian philosophy is mostly religious. So it could be covered under religion to the extent necessary. The more serious problem is that the text you added is entirely opaque. It mentions a whole bunch of Sanskrit technical terms and history dating back to the 6th century BC without actually conveying anything. If one wants to add Philosophy in this page, a much more high-level and understandable description of it should be written. In any case, this discussion should happen on the article's talk page, not here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Indian philosophy also includes political philosophy we can have three small paragraphs, two for philosophical schools that shaped Indian religious thought and one for 20th century contemporary and political philosophy such as Gandhian Socialism and Integral humanism and Nehruism for example. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that various Sramanaic philosophy were not religious in nature, for example Atotmism of Pakudha Kaccayana or Ajita Kesakambalis Matrialiam. It is important that we have a small, simplified philosophical section. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Indo-Aryan migration theory. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it and have the same opinion K. You should not revert others blindly and force them to talk page when (reliable sources are given and policies followed) you can intiate the discussion yourself too! --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

AP, of course you think have the same opinion; stop making trolling comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, I am not trolling. I made my comment in all seriousness and expect that it be considered so. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I know your intentions are good. But maybe, sometimes, they're just not very helpfull. It would be more helpfull if you try to calm down the two of these valued editors, who can spent their time better than with templating each other. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Vic was just letting off some steam. Let it go, people. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that Bharat Ratna is not honourable enough to be mentioned? Then, I would suggest you to read WP:HONORIFICS again. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but not in the way you are doing. Bharat Ratna is not a title. Even if it was title WP:HONORIFICS doesn't allow one to put such titles as if they were the part of a name. If you want to contest it, you can raise it on [{WP:INB]] notice board. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear User. Please stop vandalizing the article. Your edits are ridiculous. The Area of Pakistan should reflect Pakistani held Kashmir since Pakistan controls these parts. The 881 figure includes Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Nobody cares that you as an Indian dont agree with this. You didnt even bother to change the area in Miles sq, which also includes Pakistani Kashmir. Please refrain from political edit warring. --Xinjao (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This, I guess. Nice fellow. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't post on your page again, but I really have to ask: what? Bishonen | talk 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

Sorry, Bishonen. I seem to have dozed off at that point, and my fingers might have hit a rollback-button accidentally. Truly embarrassing! Thanks for giving another chance to Pankaj. Let us hope he has learnt his lessons. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please look into this article as people keep on removing sourced bits in the article for their own personal reasons. Also the article Gurjar should be gujjar as most of gujjar population is in Pakistan and nobody knows what gurjar is. Thankyou. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

The page is certainly on my watch list. But it is really Sitush that has worked on the page. So you need to convince him about your reasons. The pre-1950 sources are not WP:HISTRS. So you need contemporary sources. As for the name of the article, I am ok with either one. Note that gujjar is still available as a redirect. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Dear Whenever You will see My message plz contact . engr.israrraja@gmail.com . thank You & best Regard Engr.Israr raja RajaKashmiri786 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you forgot to sign at this page? I thought it was the user's message.--Vin09 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I am showing signs of my age! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I note we have both been reverting the same, continuous, IP vandalism on the Peshawar article. I have been doing some edit history checks on the article. You may fund this:- page protection request interesting. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Didn't know you had requested it originally. I too find that the pending changes protection is working reasonably ok despite my initial scepticism about it. These days, I request it myself in preference to semi-protection. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources refer to Madhesis as Adivasi.Burbak (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Burbak: An edit summary like Madhesis are not adivasi, that is ridiculous here indicates a personal opinion rather than a policy-based justification. Please state the rationale precisely in your edit summaries. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Madhesis are not Adivasi, that's a fact as there is no source to support this. Your reasoning for reverting my edit was that it was sourced which was clearly not true. Anyway, I have added a new source relating to the Tharu people of Nepal who are indeed Adivasi.Burbak (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then a good summary would have been that "the content was not in source". I am not getting involved in a content dispute. Just checking the fidelity of the edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria. Pleasant and thoughtful greeting! I wish you in turn a very happy holiday season with your loved ones. Hope you are getting a well-deserved break. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ooops. Seems like I looked at the wrong column before reverting, too much "Christmas spirit" perhaps... Thomas.W ^talk 19:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Have a happy Christmas! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing "rational" about "personal devotion to God". Richard Dawkins and many other atheists would find this ridiculous.
• Vedic rituals (Srauta) require equal role of women.
• In Buddhism, women are not able to attain Buddhahood except in the Hindu-influenced tantric teachings.
• Mahabharata is fictionalVictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you are really intent on arguing!

• I didn't say devotion to God was rational. I said rational principles of dharma. All this is relative of course.
• The yajamana is always a man, even though a wife (the senior wife) was expected to accompany him. A man without a wife could still perform his own sacrifices. A woman never had such a privilege. Hardly an "equal role."
• Indeed, Buddha didn't (couldn't?) go far enough.
• Even fictional works tell us facts about the people who composed them and their world.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you cannot perform Srauta ritual without women. Read "Vedic Voices".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't produce babies without women either. That never stopped the patriarchs from bossing over the women. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In Hinduism, the mangalsutra has both man and woman's gothrams. The wedding ritual involves both mothers from both families. Compare this to a Christian wedding, where the bride is given away like property by the bride's father.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Honouring mothers and honouring wives are entirely different propositions. There is no way you can confuse one for the other. - Kautilya3 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

But the wife is honored. Wife's gothram is on the mangalsutra. Wife often keeps her last name in India. Bride is decorated in expensive jewelry. And the wife is not given away like property. Compare to christianity.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in any kind of contest between religions. All religions, I believe, have made some effort to be fairer to women. The ideas incorporated in religions reflect, to a large degree, the customs and power structures that were in operation when those ideas were formulated. But religions, over time, acquire power and collaborate with other power structures in the society and get corrupted as a result. In my view, the degree of such corruption in Hinduism has been extremely high. All the liberalism of the Upanishads, Buddhism, Jainism, Ashoka etc. was destroyed by the time of Manusmriti, and since then Hinduism has been primarily a negative force, only to be countered, attacked and reformed repeatedly over centuries. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Uma Chakravarti's Gendering Caste through a Feminist Lens is quite brilliant. I recommend it highly. It doesn't negate anything I have known, but it gives me new perspectives that never occurred to me nor found anywhere else. Far from being an "activist," she writes quite sensitively even though the subject she is dealing with is inflammatory in itself. It is by far the best work I have read on the social aspects of Hinduism. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Buddhist texts have just as much as varna and jati as Hinduism. In fact the division between Hinduism and Buddhism is a late medieval invention.
• Uma Chakravarti talks about Mahabharata, but Mahabharata is equally part of Buddhism too. Tibetan texts talk about Pandavas, Kauravas etc.
• Medieval Indian Buddhism required strict oral transmission, abhishekas etc. from a teacher to practice. Hinduism never required that.
• Medieval Indian Buddhism had numerous power structures such as Nalanda, Vikramsila etc. Buddhism was the religion of the elites. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you are critical of Buddhism just as I am critical of Hinduism. I will be adding text to the Caste System article sourced to Uma Chakravarti. You are welcome to add other well-sourced content too. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that caste is a government program right? Caste is recorded on all sorts of forms. It has nothing to do with Hinduism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Hinduism was the government in old times. So there is no contradiction there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about modern day. When you enter school your caste is recorded by the government. When you get married your caste is recorded by the government. And they get very specific down to sub castes such as Munnuru Kapu. It has nothing to do with Hinduism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: First thing is that I can't find your source on this 1960 act that you are speaking of. It seems to be a broken link. I did research and did find this link: http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc=. This is an official language act from 1960 which states,"English should be the principal official language and Hindi the subsidiary Official Language till 1965. After 1965, when Hindi becomes the principal official language of the Union, English should continue as the subsidiary official language." However, this is an old order, as it was amended by the official languages act in 1963 which I quoted in the talk section, and a document in 1968 called the official language resolution states, "under article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi shall be the official language of the Union, and under article 351 thereof it is the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi Language and to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India":http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzg=. This is the most current language act in use and rules and provisions were listed in a 1976 act which was amended 3 times: http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzk=. Therfore, I am not making any assumption or interpretations. It clearly says, quoted directly, "Hindi is the official language of the Union of India", therefore, no I am not assuming or interpreting things, it is a logical conclusion that Hindi is the official language. I hope I have cleared it once and for all. I hope you have no more objections. Please get rid of the 1960 source unless you are talking in relation to before 1965. I think my edits are reasonable and correct. I don't want to get in disputes with you, but I urge to you to compromise reasonably.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akhila3151996: This discussion belongs on the article talk page. I will copy it there. I also recall that I wrote that you shouldn't be editing the article until consensus is reached. I would like to point out that we haven't reached a consensus yet. So, editing the article is premature. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Architecture by country. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have the energy to fight this particular fight - I honestly started deleting an obvious duplication - which a precious editor obviously very attached to their own writing has called a 'massive deletion' - and some bad phraseology and the problem just got bigger and bigger. Mostly the article is fine, but there are instances of overbearing, teacherly directions to the reader, like - "It should be borne in mind" - which trying to say the text is important by authority rather than good writing. There's a lot of unencyclopedic phraseology; "In modern times, we find a mosque" - as thought its a surprise, and "While we have had a mosque" - no we haven't. We haven't had anything. I'm still not sure if the point of the text is to say there was a Hindu temple before the Babri mosque or that there was, then there wasn't, then there sort of was, so the writing doesn't present either side of the Ayodhya dispute clearly. And hasn't anyone noticed that this whole section is backwards for a Wikipedia article? You don't list the sources in the text, praise the sources and then quote directly from the sources. The references go at the bottom and then the facts presented in the text. The cheerleading of the writers of the sources is totally unnecessary. If the source was no good it wouldn't be there. And that 'summary' section is completely unnecessary. Show me one other Wikipedia article which has one. This isn't some university exam paper where the writer is asked to present a particular argument. That is the opposite of NPOV.Mdw0 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mdw0, you are raising some valid points about the quality of the prose in the article; but the solution to those problems is to rewrite the prose, not to delete it. Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with a "summary" or "overview" section for a very long article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Overviews belong at the very beginning and are about the whole subject. If the text was clear a summary would not be necessary. But, as I said, when I saw how much needed fixing it became more than I could do, for the moment.Mdw0 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdw0: The historical background section was contributed by me, roughly a year ago. It was one of the first pieces of long narratives I wrote. It hasn't been touched by anybody since then, Hindu or Muslim, leftist or rightist, until yesterday. I consider that an accomplishment. This is highly contentious politicised dispute, where the scholars themselves are considered politicised. The approach I used was to provide the facts as best as we know them and avoid all opinions.

The "it should be borne in mind" phrase occurs because the historical source has mentioned 2 mosques constructed by Aurangzeb and one presumed to be constructed by Babur. What made the source club these three mosques together? Theories abound, but it is best to leave it to the reader to make up his/her own mind.

"The point of the text" is to state what we know. I don't have any intention of providing simplistic answers of the kind you suggest.

I have no idea what "cheerleading" of the sources you have found, but the background of the primary sources needs to be provided for the reader to decide what value to place on them. The three primary sources are themselves part of the narrative. They are not what the article is based on, rather it is based on scholarly sources that have analysed them.

As Vanamonde recommends, you can reword where necessary. But the overall thrust of your arguments indicates that you haven't understood what the narrative is trying to do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think what the narrative makes clear to any discerning reader are the following facts:

• There was no Rama and no Ayodhya in antiquity. Both of them were probably fictitious.
• Ayodhya as a place was invented by the Guptas, during whose time Rama also came to be regarded as an avatar of Vishnu. But it was Vishnu that was worshipped directly rather than Rama.
• During the Gahadavala period, Rama acquired more prominence, but still it was Vishnu temples that were built.
• The Rama cult came into being only around the time of Babur and Tulsidas. Ayodhya came to be celebrated as Rama's birthplace.
• The local histories of Ayodhya state that Babur demolished a temple, but attempts have since been made to suppress that history.
• Aurangzeb probably built something at the spot, after which the Hindus came to believe the particular spot as Rama's birthplace.
• Around 1750, when the British took control, both the Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya believed that the Babri Mosque stood on the supposed birth place of Rama. The denials started coming in only in the 20th century, after the Hindu-Muslim relations got politicised. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ayodhya is originally a Buddhist site. There was well sourced info that was deleted by an Admin. Since it was an Admin, I didn't fight it.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That summary there is exactly how the text in the article should be structured. Except for the first line, because in a religious debate it is pointless to say religion is fiction. But even you can see that the article doesn't follow this simple, linear path. It is much more meandering, because the structure is backwards. There is not just presentation of facts here, there is opinion and supposition and interpretation. You call it 'background of the primary sources'. I call it cheerleading. It can be assumed that sources are genuine and appropriate, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Ironically, this supportive 'background' does the opposite of making them sources look strong - in fact it makes them look weak and unsure, and in need of literal support, as though the writer assumes they would be automatically attacked as being inferior or partisan.

You are wrong about the phrase "it should be borne in mind" which I am sure you have heard teachers and documentary voiceovers and lecturers use. It is an instruction; an editorializing, journalistic indicator of special importance, in order to tell the reader to make a particular interpretation. Indicating "what WE know" presupposes agreement with a given position. Using phrases like that is not the neutral fact-presenting style sought by Wikipedia, it is language that presents one side of an argument in an article that is supposed to be about an argument. By that, I mean the article is supposed to be about the dispute, not about whether one side or the other is right. Pretending there isn't any opinion is absolutely the wrong approach. Both sides need to be clearly presented. If there is no opinion, how can there be an Ayodhya dispute? And don't accuse someone who criticises the clarity of your writing of not being 'a discerning reader.' That sort of instant oversensitivity is typical of someone too attached to their own writing in Wikipedia. If you consider a piece of writing to be 'an accomplishment' you will automatically be resistant to change, and consider edits a personal attack, even if its an improvement.Mdw0 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That summary is my interpretation of the facts, which I might put in an article in a news magazine, if I ever write one. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Liz. Wish you a great new year too! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sorry it was my IP, I forgot to log in. Kindly reach a consensus with Mansoor Ijaz a prime witness of the memo gate case as per Wiki BLP rules. Especially content with reference to Ayesha Jalal as he has voice serious concerns over it as per Wiki OR rules. I am still new to the Wiki family and am still learning, sorry for the earlier mistake. GreenBeret65 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@GreenBeret65: I heard you fine the first time. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, as per WP:RS, and the editors' opinions are irrelevant. Mr. Ijaz, being part of the subject of the article, has conflict of interest in the subject and his views will be completely ignored. He can only raise objections based on WP:BLP violations concerning him and, if we can't resolve such issues on the talk page, they will be referred to WP:BLP/N. Any reverts you make to the article edits have to be justified on the grounds of Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Temporary work. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kakatiya dynasty. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Devanampriya (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Look buddy, the protocol to follow is WP:BRD. When a `bold edit' is reverted, you are expected to discuss it on the talk page. Cryptic edit summaries of multiple changes do not constitute a discussion. You need to explain and justify every change. Got it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mayby not. See [1]. Sounded familiair, when I checked his block-log.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, that was almost exactly a year ago. So, you have only one sockpuppet? I have at least 4, even though I started much later [2]. I guess you have work to do!

As for `Devavampriya', he has a beautiful user id. But he could drop the redundant `r', and it would be even more beautiful! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Two years. I took a look at that SPI again; it was indeed odd. I can understand now that he suspected me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year to you too, Humanist! Have you been away? I have been on a short holiday myself, but grabbed some time to do some Wiki-ing in the midst of it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am busy in my real life since last month, I suppose to be busy right now also, but one incident made me to increase my activity on Wikipedia. Actually on 1st January, on day 1 of this year, I was involved in a very danger road accident. My bike is completely damaged. Intensity of the accident was so high that people gather around me just to check whether I am alive or dead. But strangely I survived. I was wearing helmet. There was not even bleeding from anywhere. People were amazed to see me alive and mostly unharmed. People congratulated me for being alive. Only my right leg was in pain, later it was diagnosed that I have a minor fracture in right leg which will take few weeks to heal. So now I am bedridden and I don't have any work other than editing Wikipedia. This is how my new year started. But now my respect towards life is increased, now I know the importance of having 2 hands and 2 legs intact. Anything could have been happened with me. I am feeling myself lucky. I am feeling like I reborn. --Human3015^TALK  04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My goodness! Very sorry to hear about the mishap. I am sure all your sukruthas have come back to save you. Indeed, nothing like an experience like this to teach us the value of life, and the value of all our body. Please recover soon! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

He was talking about a different articleVictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I made changes to the edits, they weren't the same ones I posted before. @Paul August: said what bothered him about them is that they used the words "Hindu-Arabic numerals", I changed them all to "arabic numerals" and asked him his thoughts, but he didn't respond. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

All article-related discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page so that all the involved editors can participate. I didn't understand what you were trying to do from the beginning because you didn't write any edit summaries. Also, there were very few sources and it looked like a personal commentary. I am also sorry to say that the English wasn't up to the mark. So, please put it on the article's talk page as to what you are trying to to do. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about, this attitude that edits need consensus before being posted. It is incredibly maladaptive for wikipedia. The content I added didn't need new sources. It was things already stated in the article or so elementary as to require no sourcing, ie that it consists of ten numeral glpyhs. The prose was a bit casual, but to suggest my English was off the mark? You should examine your choice of wording. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't even casual, I fixed that. Did you even read my edits? [3]--Monochrome_Monitor 17:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is what you need to do if you want to avoid unnecessary heartburn. (1) write edit summaries that explain what you are trying to do. (2) give citations for all new content (3) open a talk page discussion whenever your edits get reverted. Isn't that easy enough to do? - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please direct me to whatever needs sourcing. I thought discussing the edits on my (and now your) talk page sufficed. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Expert editors make sure that every sentence they write is backed by a source, because unsourced material can be challenged and removed as explained on WP:V and WP:WHYCITE. In any case, I have already posted on the article talk page with the substantive issue with your edits. You need to respond there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs to be referenced. A paragraph with a citation is fine. Exceptions to this are quotes and statistics, which must be quoted directly.Mdw0 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I confirmed my contribution by third party resources and the text is neutral. And to this subject (Yoga art) there was dedicated a book of an expert, published in 1975. May I ask you a question - are you telling that there was no yoga art in history of yoga and art? And I think that the article "Yoga" is a promotion of yoga. Please return my contribution. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulia Gnat (talk • contribs)

@Yulia Gnat: In the first place, your contribution seemed more like it was about a book and its author, rather than the subject of "Yoga art" itself. It did not even explain what Yoga art was. Secondly, even if you were to correct that, the material might still be considered undue for this article, because the Yoga art is likely to be art inspired by Yoga, but it is not itself Yoga. This article is about Yoga. You might want to consider creating a separate article on Yoga art, but you would need to ensure that it meets general notability guidelines. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ok, I will add more text about yoga and its art and make a new contribution to the article Yoga. Thank you.--YG 12:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Note that even a revised contribution might still be undue, because it may not be directly relevant to the topic. I think only a small one-two sentence mention would be appropriate here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laksa. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You got to see this bro, I am not sure why he is spreading hatred on Wikipedia with this type of language. And I thought you were very good towards him during all that fiasco.

Not sure if you saw his "Get lost message" on Talk:Mukti Bahini#Edit conflict with Akbar the Great directed towards me. How can someone talk with a person with this type of attitude! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he is a disturbed soul. Don't worry about him. He will pay for it all some day. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

gurjar are present large amount in pakistan please dont revert my editRaj Gujjar•talk

No problem with Pakistan. But your content should be reliably sourced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: there are dozens of refrences are present in article

why are you reverting my edits on gurjar??? Gurjars are second largest group of pakistan please now fix this problemRaj Gujjar•talk

I reverted them because you are ignoring the policies on reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking into this because I don't think there is any real dispute that they do exist in Pakistan - the problem is one of sourcing, as you and I both recognise. I've come across this book but my brain is a bit fried at the moment. It might be of use for the Gurjar article and also for the Pratiharas, Rajputs etc because it seems to contain a potted history covering the interactions/relationships etc. Does it look ok to you? - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I second Sitush, the question is entirely of sourcing, hope nobody has any doubts that Gujjars do live on both sides of the border and LoC and until 1947 many of those living pastoral life freely wandered across the Western edge of the Himalayas and large parts of the Karakorum mountains. I think article says it all - unsure there is need for additional references. kashmiri ^TALK 21:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure Dev raj gujjar can follow the source and develop new content. After all, he has 36,100 edits and one good article to his credit :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that ;) I can't read minds but I do suspect Dev raj gujjar may hold the misapprehension that their edits are being removed for reasons of nationalism rather than for the reasons we have explained to them. I'm just not in a great place to be summarising sources at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I finally looked at your source. I think it is a good one, and broadly agrees with what I have read in other places. I will mention it in the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you remembered because I forgot all about it - distracted by the antics of Sigmabaroda etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you advise keeping this map on the History of Kashmir? If not, I welcome you to remove it. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

I will copy this to Talk:History of Kashmir and respond there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: , How is density of J&K as 56/km2 (150/sq mi) correct? Where is the source? How it is calculated? Is this calculated taken into account the population of G-B, Azad Kashmir ,Shakshgam Valley and Aksai Chin into account? Please elaborate.--Randhwasingh (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. I never fiddled with those numbers. Did I say it was correct? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Today 20 January 2016 You deleted Roman trade with India old article section 6 January 2016 27 February 2015 and added Unsource material in Travel to India section. yes i am added Coin Age section and all are reliable sources & facts. Pls recheck it Thanks. --Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 13:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

1. You copied and pasted the the first paragraph from Coins of India.
2. Than your second paragraph was full of grammar errors. But I though I will honor your work by fixing the grammar, and putting it back in Coins of India. But you decided to revert a work that is more or less yours. So, I guess you were not confident in it.
3. I explained the reason for Roman trade to be taken out. And the History of India article is too long to have something that is available in other wiki articles.
4. That small info on Chinese travellers is accurate. The sources is within the links. You are welcomed to improve it. (2600:1001:B027:FF78:F1AA:964F:8E14:3D7 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

@Bongan: This is a fairly well-settled page. It is not under development any more. It is also quite long. So if you want to add new sections, it is better to discuss it first. The discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page, not here. As for trade, I think it would be fine to have a section on trade in general, not specifically restricted to Roman trade. The Roman trade can still form a good part of it. But singling out Roman trade in the section title doesn't feel right. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to have a problem with this:

Caste identities are reinforced by Constitution of India which entitles a form of affirmative action called reservation.^[1]

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Only the Scheduled castes (or Dalits) were recognized by the Constitution of India, and for good reason. It is fallacious to generalize that to all caste identities. The Constitution and the later Hindu Code Bills did a lot to eradicate the caste distinctions. According to Jaffrelot, Nehru's model was to have individuals and the State, with no intermediate groups in between. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going by the academic source, which says "In fact, the Constitution contains features that have reinforced caste identities...."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a theory, which needs to be discussed in the body. We can decide later whether it should go into the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Its not a theory. He literally says "In fact".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"In fact" means quite the opposite of fact! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? Thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is true. Facts are simply stated. Theories are sold with "in fact." - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is some more context from the source:

Non-Indians may be surprised that caste is not barred by India's Constitution. In fact, the Constitution contains features that have reinforced caste identities....

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean to "bar caste"? The very idea seems half-baked and dubious. How does he say that the Constitution reinforced caste identities? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Through reservation. Does this link work for you?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the full text now makes it clear that it was an unintended consequence of employing reservations in the Constitution. It also points out that it was the political parties that have exploited caste identities. Political parties also exploit religious identities, ethnic identities and racial identities all over the world. They do it even when there are no issues of reservations. To blame it all on reservations is a highly subjective opinion. There is hardly any "fact" here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Its not a highly subjective opinion. The government records caste. See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a subjective opinion too, the idea that the government recording caste itself reinforces it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your POV pushing is becoming extreme.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so. If you were indeed stating a fact, I wouldn't be able to push any POV against it :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

CIS-A2K is going to organize an edit-a-thon between 25 and 31 January this year. The aim of this edit-a-thon is creating and improving Geographical Indications in India related articles.

Please see the event and add your name as a participant: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Events/Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

Feel free to ask if you have question(s).
Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think jammu and kashmir is an indian state ?? Think again!!. Don't provide wrong information on Wikipedia.... write the truth on that page !! Otherwise I will complain to wikipedia's administration! Huzihuzz760 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Huzaifa Sattar, why did you open a new account now? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

because i don't have access to my all other accounts. Huzihuzz760 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"All other accounts?" You are only supposed to have one account on Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI - a new user is accusing you of being a sock. --Cahk (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Where? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Human3015. It is just an amusement. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, I see you've reinserted the content I deleted. If you tried reading my edit summaries for them, you'll find that I deleted them cause they had wrong data or were not even sourced. The religious percentage of Ladakhi population has no source. I've removed it again as it has no source. I do not know much but you can't re-add unsourced material.

And the book used to source that almost half of Ladakh's population are Shia Muslims and others are Biddhists is wrong. I wasn't able to read the book but I found it was published first in 1983. But the 1981 census of Ladakh says Budhists were more than 52% of Ladakhis were Buddhists. So source has wrong information. That's why it was removed. Lakhbir87 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we do ask for sources to be provided, but on old pages like this there is vast quantities of information that is unsourced (at least apparently unsourced because there aren't enough footnotes). If we go around deleting everything that hasn't been supported by sources, then there would be very little of the article left. That is why I recommended that you find the uptodate information and modify the table. If the information is truly contentious, you should delete it of course, and hope that somebody has the energy to put the correct information. It is not a subject that concerns me a great deal. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment seems like "two wrongs make one right". They don't. Yes the other parts of article are unsourced as well though I let them go since they aren't about exact demographics. However I am in complete support of their removal. Like the heading at all edit pages say "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".

Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 12:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bongan, I am sorry I don't know enough about the policies on images. I would think the principle of verifiability applies to all content, including images. But then I don't know how to verify images that are uploaded as self-work. Pointing to a news clip, like you did, is hopefully enough. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In memory of the great man that died today for his Vaishnava jana. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't be around much but please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naidu1234. I'm pretty sure that Naidu27, whom you have recently reverted at Kapu (caste) etc, will turn out to be another incarnation. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, possibly. But caste mythologies and caste mobilisations create such "meatpuppets" on their own. It is interesting to see the history being played out in front of our eyes, how castes mobilise and jostle for status, and how we the Wikipedia ended up playing the role of the British Empire! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We need more neutral opinions here. Please help! Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Serge, I understand your frustration, but soliciting opinions in this way may constitute WP:VOTESTACKING. Before I can participate, you need to document on the RFC whom you have solicited votes from and what criteria you have used to select them. Without it, if any of us participate, the RFC may be invalidated or at least our opinions might get ignored. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow the instructions I found here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to use the lists there. I've sent this message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the list in the History, Biography, Society-sports-culture, Wikipedia-policies-and-guidelines, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists. If I've done something wrong, or even terribly wrong, I am not aware of it, as I have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opnions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you can see whom I've written to. I do not remember ever having any interaction with any of them. My memory may fali me, but I'm 100% there can only be 2 or 4 who would know of me at all, at the most. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have picked people at random from the RFC list, that is fine. But please put this information in a subsection of the RFC so that everybody knows what you have done and nobody crows "foul." I will be happy to provide my input once I understand the issues. Thanks. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do so at once. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are many misunderstandings in what you write about the word kauṭilya. According to the rules of Sanskrit grammar, it cannot be anything to do with kuṭila "crooked". It is a clan name, not an adjective. Secondly, the author Kauṭilya who created the first version of the Arthaśāstra was not the same person as the minister at the court of Candragupta Maurya; the latter lived centuries earlier. That has been established conclusively in recent research. See the "Introduction" to Patrick Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kautilya's Arthaśāstra (2013) for arguments about this and many other matters relating to the identity of Kauṭilya and the history of the Arthaśāstra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wujastyk (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wujastyk: Thanks for your comments. I created my User page when I opened the account as a sort of a veiled manifesto of what I am about. It is not an authentic page on Kautilya by any means. But in any case, I will be glad to update in the light of recent research. (It is also funny that when I started, I didn't anticipate working on that side of history. But now I am doing it. So a revision would be warranted.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, Can you comment on the Talk Page of Article Talk:Kashmir conflict. HIAS (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya,

I saw your revert. See the wiki policies first. Unexplained edits are meant to be discussed rather than being reverted. Designation before the evident state of head is ridiculous + I had removed repeated citations that is altogether mentioned on citation page reference, do look at that

-Gaurav

I still didn't understand the explanation you added. "Acting Prime Minister" means some one temporarily holding charge. Modi is a real Prime Minister. The qualification is not appropriate. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit makes sense :)

thanks, -Gaurav

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chetan Bhatt, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kautiliya. I primarily edit Nadar articles. I am here to talk about the recent edits made by Rabtman to the Channar revolt. He has added refs to support his claims. However I doubt the validity of these refs. Rabtman is primarily here to glorify Nair relevant articles(please go through his history). He has inlcuded lines like the nadars were untouchacbles etc. Now this is a very complicated topic. According to Hardgrave and Templeman, leading anthropologists on this topic, the nadars were not untouchables. Some nadars were historically land lords. So the term Nadar today refers to all these different Nadars subcastes. The former status of all these Nadar subcastes were different from each other. So this is something we have to discuss. Most of the lines seem to glorify the Nair community(most of his edits to). I didnt revert his edits. I didnt do anything. Because I am tired of all this. My account is currently used by wife as I am very busy nowadays. Admins do not usually intervene to edit nadar pages. But I have done my best to keep the page as neutral as possible. I actually started editing because a long time ago the page was heavily attacked anti-nadar groups. I think that trend is coming back now. Please go through the recent made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. He claims that the Nair women were allowed to cover their upper body. This topic has always baffled me. According to the Nair article, the nairs didnt cover their upper bodies(men and women). I would be obliged if you would go through the recent edits made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. Most of the lines he included do not make sense. I am pretty thorough with this topic. I am willing to help you by providing you whatever info I can(I have the Hardgrave and Templeman book with me). If you are busy please recommend me some other editor who would be interested to edit these pages. I just want these articles to be maintained by neutral editors(Like the Nair article). Thank you for your time.Mayan302 (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mayan, unfortunately, I am not an expert on castes. Neither do I have any particular interest in the subject. I am interested in history and the history of the caste system in general. Through the study of history, I become familiar with a few castes here and there, and then I watch those pages by way of helping out Sitush. Other than Sitush, I don't know anybody else with expertise on castes. With Sitush keeping ill-health at this time, it falls on the rest of us to keep a watch. I can't see any other way. Please encourage your wife to open a separate account. Things can get confusing if two people use an account. There is quite assumption among Wikipedians that accounts and users are one-to-one. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Well my wife is not very into wikipedia and she is doesn't just follows my orders. I cant her force her :) . But without admin intervention I cant protect the articles. Thats for sure. The articles have proper refs. But the admins almost never intervene. We are running out of people to take care of wiki.Mayan302 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I can help you with getting the attention of admins, if you start contesting the edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you!Mayan302 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mayan302: On another note, polemics like this don't help. They will only help inflame the other editors. It is best to be focused on the article content and policy. - 11:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Got it.Mayan302 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please send.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but you need to send me an email message so that I can reply. I can't send documents by Wikipedia mail. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Done.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look Here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Sorry, I forgot about this. I got caught up with a battle on Paraiyar. It is a fascinating subject. I am slowly learning about the castes of various parts of India (!). I will look at your version. I think I will need to trim it, at least the long and unseemly quotation, and mention other things that need to be added. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please monitor this page? I have given source for Sanskrit Etymology regarding the word Ravana, however this user has been pushing Lankan tamil nationalism by adding british orientalist views as the word being "Unexplained" but the word for king in early Tamil is Vendahar in Sangam literature, rather than Iravan. I have removed it for now but please monitor this page. 117.192.211.160 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is on my watch list. But I don't know the issues well enough to contribute. I suggest that you open talk page discussions whenever there are issues so that me and others can look into the issues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Indian Left has reached the bottom of the barrel. Can you imagine westerners cheering Osama Bin Laden? See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You expect me to stop reading George L. Hart and watch Arnab Goswami talk shows instead? You are out of your mind! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You can read and watch at the same time. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If this was about Afzal Guru, he was an Indian Kashmiri separatist. So there is no comparison with Bin Laden, who never belonged anywhere here. I notice that Arnab Goswami got only worse than the last time I watched him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dude, Afzal Guru attacked the parliament of India. Wow.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, he was still an Indian, not Osama. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jihadis don't consider themselves Indian.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Indian Supreme Court got him executed. That makes him Indian. He considers himself Kashmiri, and Kashmir is part of India. That also makes him Indian. You can't have it both ways. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree he is a terrorist? yes or no?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But what I think is irrelevant. I am not the one protesting. (Some section of) the JNU students support Kashimri separatists, let us say. That have every right to do so. You can't brand them as traitors for dissenting. The only right India has on Kashmir is based on its liberalism and secularism. If both of them are gone, then Kashmir is gone too. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Its not liberal or secular to cheer terrorists. Whether its Britain, America or India.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh was a terrorist too. One man's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter. He was tried and executed for his terrorism. But still his cause might and will find support among others. That goes with the territory. If they support the cause that doesn't mean they are supporting terrorism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Its not liberal or secular to cheer Jihadi terrrorists.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, let us put in prison everybody that cheers for Bhagat Singh. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who cheers for Jihadi terrorists should be sent to Guantanamo Bay or CIA black site.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And thereby produce an ISIS inside the Mother India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Congress Party allowed Saudis to propagate Salafism in India, the doctrine of ISIS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dasa page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya,

References have been given to every sentence in-spite of this how can you delete the article?

Is this what you want to do with Wikipedia a great source of information when references are also given.

Is it fair that you haven't even gone through the references cited and just remove or vandalise a page and just keep couple sentences as the article. Is this the way to go about it?

Let's discuss before you want to revert it. OK.

Reg,

Wise Wik — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was inadvertant. The rollback button picked up all the edits you had done in sequence. Nevertheless, there are problems with almost all your edits. Please continue the discussion on the article talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya, the edits to the article is as per the reference cited and have given comments for every edit mentioning the same. Request you to please check them before removing the edits. As per the edits I have only reinstated what is mentioned as per the references cited. Why is the same being reverted would this not be called edit warring? and rather the privileges of such editors be revoked here? And again why is sourced content being modified here. I have clearly mentioned the reference as well as the reason for the edit in the edit summary for all my edits under the heading "Edit Summary". The reference cites Komatis to be present in Maharashtra and will repaste the same reference that you yourself have sourced and cited (BTW looks deliberate as there is inclusion of minor incidents that reference to riots and other inciteful content between communities which serve no informative purpose here) To further reason, why should any incident involving another community that occurred during the British Era in a particular time limited to George Town which is nothing but a nook and corner incident, even find mention here? and again I have only included only the sourced content from the same reference provided then why is it removed and pasted in bits? as if to incite people or communities further? I checked further and found these to be included by user Kautilya and is of surprise to me here as I didn't expect this from Wikipedia editors as I held user Kautilya in good esteem.

Again it clearly mentions riots happened when business contracts alluded Komatis and Balijia Naidus who were first to riot with Beri Chettiars which forced the British to apportion commercial and residential areas of George Town.

My edit cites the same here below is the reference" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=imh4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=komati+caste&source=bl&ots=UPEt8nWzsh&sig=dLRi4_vSSASbrRCjU_mZ3_EZoEY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialpWjjIHLAhUGcI4KHRXAAFA4ChDoAQg_MAc#v=onepage&q=komati&f=false"

Mines, Mattison (1992), "Individuality and Achievement in South Indian Social History", Modern Asian Studies 26 (1): 129–156, JSTOR 312720

Also finally let's not discredit the origins of Gomathi for the alternate origins mentioned by authors during British times and exclude the importance of contemporary authors and keep both of them. Mentioning Gomathi as "one theory" seems to discredit the same, hence I have mentioned both the accepted and alternate theory about British authors during the Raj. I also checked further information and also found that the Author is from the same community and hence it's of obvious credence. Also the same that the word Komati to have its origins in Gomathi is mentioned in government journals which cannot be rubbished away.

Regards,

--WiseWik (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)WiseWik — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malcolm X. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya, the DS alert on F&F’s page is completely unnecessary and only serves to escalate what is otherwise just a simple content dispute. I’m sure they are aware of the existing Arbcom sanctions, so I’ve removed it for now. If you feel strongly about it, you are welcome to restore it. Thanks. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we all get the ARBIPA notice sooner or later. But I will let it be for now. Thanks. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no tangible evidence that Kashmiri pandits women were used as sex slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salatee (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, why are you telling me this? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed this now on Kashmiri Pandit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya, I'm surprised to see you trying to reframe the Indus Valley discussion in political terms, not something I expected and not something that is particularly productive. We're, most of us anyway, trying to be faithful to sources and to the weight that these sources give to different ideas. Reframing the debate as a political one sidetracks the issue, hardens opinions, and rarely results in a positive outcome. Something to think about? --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good point. I guess I still have some more "growing up" to do... - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah. We all get carried away at times. Fowler is exceptionally good at finding sources and is an excellent writer. Working with editors like Fowler (and Sitush) is one of the joys of being on Wikipedia and you'll figure that out soon enough. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Hind-Sind divide"(as historians call it) over IVC started in 1940s, before partition. It's nothing new.(Hind=India, Sind=Pakistan). The civilization never exclusively belonged to one country alone. It's not a left-right ideological divide, but rather political one which has its root in an artificial attempt by the founding fathers of Pakistan to give Pakistan a separate identity independent of India/Indian history. The bluff was exposed in '60 & '70. It's a settled debate now that there were also urban settlements beyond Punjab and R'stan in the east upto UP. Ghatus (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice. The Pakistanis claim the Sanskrit name, and the Indians the Persian name of the same river, precisely to deny the exact same heritages! The irony! My alter-ego is called SindHind by the way. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Secularism in India is exact opposite of secularism in America. For example, secularism in America is Separation of church and state, with same civil code for Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. Secularism in India is state control of religious institutions and different civil codes for different religions, including Sharia law. Free speech in India means that universities and employers cannot expel people even if they fly flag of ISIS. Free speech in America does not supersede codes of conduct of universities and employers. I can go on and on.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Can it be verified that these picture is what it claims to be? It looks to me that few truck drivers are having lunch. The picture is used in the page with caption "Jats provide food to those stuck because of the blockades". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jat_reservation_3.jpg --Captain Spark (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I have never worked with images. @RegentsPark: can you give your opinion on this? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of it. It may or may not be what it purports to be but we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to authenticity. If the picture was published in a reliable source, that would be a different matter. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: My edit in Jat reservation agitation was reverted by a new user who is not the uploader. --Captain Spark (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the next step is to follow WP:BRD. Please open a talk page discussion, ping the other user, and ask him/her for the source of the picture. You can cite the Wikipedia sourcing policies WP:V etc. I have watch listed the page, and I can come in if needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not sure whether to bring this up on my talk page or yours, so I brought it up on both pages. My apologies for violating any protocols. I am new here.

I was reading some wikipedia guidelines and they seem to suggest that the burden of proof lies on the person wishing to add or restore content. In most cases, content that is uncited is also unverifiable. A lot of it is potentially contentious. Is it not better to err on the side of caution? I, for one, would rather have articles that are less detailed but reliable than detailed articles that are potentially full of lies. Givemeplease (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded on your own talk page so that it is all in one place. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I found this comics about Thor fighting with Hindu Gods in 1980 comics. If anyone can show them this comics, then they will protest for few days. --Captain Spark (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

India will be gone in 50 yearsVictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it will last that long? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: & Kautilya, Why is this pessimism? This NATION is living on for more than 5000 years.

1) "In a world in which ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome have all vanished without trace
Our own attributes (name and sign) live on today.

There is something about our existence for it doesn't get wiped
Even though, for centuries, the time-cycle of the world has been our enemy."

(Yūnān o-Miṣr o-Rūmā, sab miṭ ga'e jahāṉ se
Ab tak magar hai bāqī, nām o-nis̱ẖaṉ hamārā

Kuch bāt hai kih hastī, miṭtī nahīṉ hamārī
Ṣadiyoṉ rahā hai dus̱ẖman daur-i zamāṉ hamārā)

2) Tagore-

I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Vidhata (God of Destiny) of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved.

3) Nehru-

"India is a geographical and economic entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads. About her there is the elusive quality of a legend of long ago; some enchantment seems to have held her mind. She is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real and present and pervasive."

4) Swami Vivekananda-

" I see in my mind's eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible."

I am an eternal optimist. Our country is eternally secured.Ghatus (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus, if you understand mathematics a little bit, you would know the idea of "exponential growth," where roughly speaking things double every few years. When you have processes that grow exponentially, the past is a poor indicator of the future. The American public thinks global warming is a myth because they see the past as a predictor of the future. But we produce enough green house gases in 5 years (say) as we did in the entire history of the planet. In India, similarly, there is a reluctance to understand the exponential growth of Hindu nationalism. "We have been ok, so we will be ok." Mathematics says that is false reasoning. We produce as many fanatics in 5 years (say) as we did in the entire history. Nobody knows what will happen. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is Islam, not Hindu nationalism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Same difference! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus:, read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talking about Islam, how come nobody has bothered to create a decent page on Jaish-e-Mohammed, the supposed equivalent of Al Qaeda? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

All global Sunni terrorism is 1 network. Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan for example.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well. Then let us delete the Jaish-e-Mohammed page. What is the point? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I myself is born in a Hindu Brahmin family, I consider "rationalism" as my religion. We will have to stop the rise of "UNREASON"- be it of any community. Actually, one communalism feeds the other communialism as they are complement to each other. As a history student, I see the fall of Congress as the result of its compromise on the ideal of "real" pluralism (secularism) and the rise of BJP as a successful exploitation of the contradictions in the "so called Congressi secular narrative of post independent India". To me, today's Hindutva force is a reactionary force - a reaction to post 70's congressi hypocrisy on pluralism. And like all reactionary forces, Hindutva generally focuses on both "racial masculinity" and "patriotic nationalism". If one wants to fight sectarianism, he has to take both - Hindu extremism and Islamic fundamentalism - head on. Being soft or hard on only one will eventually encourage the other.Ghatus (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think our own page on Indian National Congress is woefully silent on the "congressi hypocricy." - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, terms like "communalism," "extremism," and "fundamentalism" are simplistic Leftist mumbo-jumbo which sidestep the real issues. Is Kashmiri separatism "Islamic fundamentalism?" Is claiming "Kashmir is an integral part of India" Hindu "extremism?" We need real debate on real issues. In a way, the JNU started precisely that. Let us not oversimplify things. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir seperatism is merely a part of global Sunni terrorism. Watch BBC documentary called Pakistan Doublecross.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That may be so. But the Hindu nationalists don't do a thing to fight the global terrorism. They are paper tigers who take out their frustrations on the neighbourhood Indians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is a term of White privilege. Edwin Bryant can be "agnostic" about Aryan Migration and not be termed a Hindu nationalist. Whites like David Gordon White can trace Vedas to Indus Valley Civilization without being called Hindu nationalist.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a reasonable explanation, though one that's completely unknown to the 'AIT-bashers'. If only they read some serious lecture - or Wikipedia! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Morevoer we have evidence of these processes happening throughout history, e.g., George L. Hart#Early Evidence for Caste in South India, and perhaps even happening now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I only have to look at the place where I come from; the regio there changed from Frysian-speaking to Gronings (Saxon)-speaking, due to the influence of the Saxon city Groningen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement, "According to tradition" was added 1 March 2016, can you prove it is sourced content? Else it is an unsourced addition. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that it was added today. @Huangdi: can you throw light on this? I don't have access to the source cited. As far as I am concerned, the whole sentence can go away. There is no evidence that Mahmud destroyed anything. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The source for the sentence, Habib 1965, p. 52-57, makes no mention of any tradition. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let us move this over to the article talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Even JJ told you before that ANI and ASI are some 60,000 years old. How many times do we have to go over the same thing?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The genes may be 60,000 years old. That tells us nothing about the people that carried them. I have 60,000 year old genes. Don't tell me I am 60,000 year old. You have no clue what is going on here, do you? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I'm a biologist.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes it even more scary! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done full human cadaver dissection, phd level pharma, phd level histology, phd level evolution. I have the education of a medical doctor essentially.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Even more SCARY! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

? Biologists are nice people. As soem of my housemates, biologists, used to say (long time ago, when we were studying): the highest risk-factor for dying is living; the correlation is 100%. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but according to Vic, I have been dead for 60,000 years! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You believe all sorts of odd things. See your user page for example.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your work here! Givemeplease (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Givemeplease. You are doing pretty well yourself, considering how new you are here. Hope you will stick around and contribute to all the pages of your interest. We are quite in short supply of well-informed editors! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As seen above with your vandalism post on Komati Caste, it seems you are quite used to blanking out edit from other WP editors to further your cause. Clearly the blanking out from you at this diff wherein both Kumar and Gandhi's reference of the RSS, is clearly biased. It reiterates the fact of the RSS being absent in the freedom struggle and siding with the British Raj when India needed independence; this fact already mentioned in the same page some sections prior.

So in no way, you can revert this, Kautilya3, unless ofcourse you are a "bhakt" itself, promoting the fascist thrice banned organisation, the RSS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue, instead of making unhelpfull and misplaced accusations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Huhshyeh: I reverted your edit as per the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources. Kanhaiya Kumar is not a scholar of Hindu nationalism, and his views on the RSS don't count. You can perhaps put them in the Kanhaiya Kumar page, but even there it is likely to get shot down because it comes across as a heated comment rather than a well-considered view. If you find a WP:SECONDARY source that uses this quote for some analysis, then you would be on more solid ground. Until then, I suggest you drop this. Wikipedia is a not a platform. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Kumar re-instated the facts mentioned in the same page. And what was the reason for your blanking out Rahul Gandhi? Both had voice against the RSS, and both got arrested for the same "sedition" charge - or do you want this not to be highlighted? So, now will you be reverting your revert? Huhshyeh (talk)

All my reverts will have edit summaries that explain why the edit was reverted. Please refer to them. And, please don't call it "blanking." Reverting an edit is not called "blanking." - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and WEIGHT is based on the sources, not your personal opinion that you think those sources are wrong.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, you better start reading the sources then! This for a start [4]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Will you please stop disputing sources based merely on your own personal opinion? I'm a biologist by training, and I never use my personal opinions in regard to sourcing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

To determine WP:WEIGHT, you have to read all the sources my dear, not just your favoured ones! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

But the personal opinion of Kautilya3 does not factor as a source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. (WP:WEIGHT) So, you want to source Flat Earth just because you can't be bothered to figure out that the Earth is round, or because it disagrees with your POV. So far you don't show any evidence of reading sources. If you keep badgering me you will end up at WP:AE. So, please stop. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This User:Vatasura is trying to push bias-agenda and propaganda on Tamil people page, dispute telling him that Indian-Tamils are not stateless and we do NOT identify as such, nor is there Tamil separatism in India and it is only confined to Sri Lankan-Tamils. He won't listen and claims all 77 million Tamils (Majority of us who live in India-Tamil Nadu) are apparently stateless, which is just absurd and offensive. 117.192.218.44 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for alerting me. I see that he has added some sources. Do they back up what he claims? If not, that would be the right point to bring up. All content should be reliably sourced, and all published opinions in such sources should be fairly represented. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am doing a re-reading of The Discovery of India after a long time. While doing so, I came across this passage which is , to me, spot on the causes of the rise of Pan-Islamism & Muslim separatism (TNT) in India, post 1857 revolt. Do you agree?

"The Revolt of 1857 was a joint affair, but in its suppression Moslems felt strongly, and to some extent rightly, that they were the greater sufferers. This Revolt also put an end finally to any dreams or fantasies of the revival of the Delhi empire. That empire had vanished long ago, even before the British arrived upon the scene. The Marathas had smashed it and controlled Delhi itself. Ranjit Singh ruled in the Punjab. Mughal rule had ended in the north without any intervention of the British, and in the south also it had disintegrated. Yet the shadow emperor sat in the Delhi palace, and though he had become a dependant and pensioner of the Marathas and the British successively, still he was a symbol of a famous dynasty. Inevitably, during the Revolt the rebels tried to take advantage of this symbol, in spite of his weakness and unwillingness. Ending of the Revolt meant also the smashing of the symbol.

As the people recovered slowly from the horror of the Mutiny days, there was a blank in their minds, a vacuum which sought for something to fill it. Of necessity, British rule had to be accep- ted, but the break with the past had brought something more than a new government; it had brought doubt and confusion and a loss of faith in themselves. That break indeed had come long before the Mutiny, and had led to the many movements of thought in Bengal and elsewhere to which I have already referred. But the Moslems generally had then retired into their shells far more than the Hindus, avoided western education, and lived in day-dreams of a restoration of the old order. There could be no more dreaming now, but there had to be something to which they could cling on... They searched for their national roots else- where. To some extent they found them in the Afghan and Mughal periods of India, but this was not quite enough to fill the vacuum... This search for cultural roots led Indian Moslems (that is, some of them of the middle class) to Islamic history, and to the periods when Islam was a conquering and creative force in Baghdad, Spain, Constantinople, central Asia, and elsewhere. There had always been interest in this history and some contacts with neighbouring Islamic countries. There was also the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, which brought Moslems from various countries together... The Mughal Emperors in India recognized no Khalifa or spiritual superiors outside India. It was only after the complete collapse of the Mughal power early in the nineteenth century that the name of the Turkish Sultan began to be mentioned in Indian mosques. This practice was confirmed after the Mutiny. Thus Indian Moslems sought to derive some psychological satisfaction from a contemplation of Islam's past greatness,

chiefly in other countries." - Nehru, The Discovery of India

Ghatus (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nehru was an incurable romantic, a Leftist and a descendant of Mughal courtiers. We can't take his reading as an objective assessment. The reality is likely to be that the Indian Muslims (the Upper and Middle classes as well as the clergy) thought of themselves as the ruling class of India that lost power to the British, and there is a continuity from there to the creation of Pakistan. Nehru was something like a Moguhul prince that imagined a composite India and wanted to bring it to fruition. But the Muslim nobles thought he was a joke. Dangerous myths on both sides that eventually led to a nuclear flashpoint in the subcontinent. If Nehru was more objective, he would have agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan and figured out how to share power with the Muslim nobility. Politics is the art of the possible, not of romantic ideals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

On which points do you disagree? That the Indian Muslims (the Upper and Middle classes as well as the clergy) thought of themselves as the ruling class of India that lost power to the British is what Nehru refers to as fantasies. And, this fantasy forced them to seek some psychological satisfaction from a contemplation of Islam's past greatness. You seem to agree with Nehru. And, what is "leftism" and "romanticism" here in the passage? I think the passage is very logical and analytical.

And, the Cabinet Mission Plan and the Partition are different issues. Their pros and cons and any talk on them require discussion of different magnitude. The Cabinet Mission Plan was a perfect recipe for civil war and balkanization of India as it advocated 1) a weak centre., 2) strong states, 3) grouping of states or regionalization. Further, 1946 cabinet failed to work together despite League and Congress having 1:1 ministers though League and Congress won 1:3 seats. I think, as Patel told, partition was an inevitable thing and it went good for India.Ghatus (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)This is probably a part of a larger discussion that I'm unaware off but, on the face of it, the passage is reflective of Nehru's views but can't directly be used to support the view that a separatist movement amongst Muslims in India developed as a direct result of a perception of loss of power. If there are other academic sources that credibly make this argument, then Nehru's views could be included as an important non-academic opinion, but Nehru himself was a lay historian at best. IMO, the argument itself is not unreasonable, though it is almost definitely incomplete. There is evidence, for example, that Muslims suffered disproportionately at the hands of the British after the rebellion because they made up a large chunk of the mutineers and because of the elevation of Bahadur Shah. As a result, they were marginalized after the rebellion while the Hindu elite actively coopted themselves into the Raj. Add the partition of Bengal to the mix and the causes of Muslim/Hindu separation in India become far more complex. But that's just what I think and all of it is meaningless without sources :) --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I am agreeing with Nehru's understanding of Indian Muslims, but disagreeing with his language. Calling it a "fantasy" or "day-dreaming" is a delusion. Muslims lost power and they bid their time to get it back. In the interim (perhaps after the shock of the Mutiny wore off), they did everything possible to work for it. I might say the Maharashtrian Brahmins were doing the same thing too. I see an unwillingness on Nehru's part to face the facts. The entire Discovery of India is an overly romanticised picture of India that fills one with a warm fuzzy feeling of a great land that is destined to surmount all the odds forever. It doesn't tell you that it is a land where a neighbour is willing to cut the throat of a neighbour in the name of their beliefs. Nehru did not anticipate the Partition horrors. He also could not have predicted that the RSS would one day take over India. His romanticism blocked his vision.

As for the Cabinet Mission Plan, there is a lot of revisionist Congress history fed to us about how terrible it was. But this revisionist history can't explain why Congress accepted it if it was such a bad idea. Congress accepted it and Nehru sabotaged it. Nehru's followers now tell us that Nehru was right. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: this is just a discussion, nothing to do with any edit and Kautilya,

1)" Nehru's views could be included as an important non-academic opinion, but Nehru himself was a lay historian at best. IMO" - Certainly. He was not a historian, but a politician. But, fortunately or unfortunately, it was his ideas which became the centre point of almost the entire post independent historian generation and many of them ( whom we consider reputed voices) only expanded his thesis on Indian history. This trend in post independent India was known as "Nehru as a Historian" movement. The best example is Satish Chandra who is probably the most authoritative voice on medieval India dedicating a chapter in his book Nehru The Historian. Also is this one Nehru and History. You will find almost every reputed historian of post independent India upto Ram Guha used The Discovery of India as some kind of basis for their thesis. I do not know whether they are all sycophants of Nehru or Nehru understood history properly before all of us.

2) "It doesn't tell you that it is a land where a neighbour is willing to cut the throat of a neighbour in the name of their beliefs. Nehru did not anticipate the Partition horrors. He also could not have predicted that the RSS would one day take over India." - No. He spoke on these matters in the chapter "The Question of Minorities - The Muslim League:Mr. M.A. Jinnah". Further, Nehru predicted that We (Indians and Pakistanis) have been living so close and together for such a long time that we can never be indifferent to each other - either there will be brotherly relationship or there will be supreme hatred.

3)"As for the Cabinet Mission Plan, there is a lot of revisionist Congress history fed to us about how terrible it was." - You can fight a theory with a counter theory. But, there is still no dominant counter theory to prove that Nehru was wrong. For any ideology to spread, you need to create a group of intellectuals or intellectual soldiers which the anti-Nehru groups failed to create. One just can not shout "He is biased or She is revisionist or We are being fed wrong history."

I an not a fan of Nehru per se. But, I thought it necessary to clear the air on Nehru. :-)Ghatus (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adiagr (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

Check the article, when you have extra time. --Captain Spark (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark, I generally dislike "Anti-X Sentiment" type articles. They are mostly full of WP:OR and lack WP:BALANCE. Somebody needs to figure out how to get rid of them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice trick! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, I have the case "Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?" filed on Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard. Some neutral volunteers, may helps to solve this dispute quickly and fair.Vatasura (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kautilya3. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Chetan Bhatt".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your comments, I belong to Uttarakhand and have studied in Kumaon University and have my Friends who have contributed photographs and content to pay tribute to a legendary freedom fighter Bharat Ratna Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant. Please Include the relevant historic photographs connected to Pandit Pant namely

• Pandit Pant with Sardar Patel – It has a lot of historical relevance .
• Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru & Home Minister Pandit Pant .
• President Radhakrishna & Home Minister Pandit Pant .
• Gandhi ji , Jawaharlal Nehru and Pandit Pant.
• Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru & Home Minister Pandit Pant.

For The tribute section – we are adding content with the relevant photographs – Kindly Include in the Wikipedia page of Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant. I am editing the Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant page basis the interaction with you as on March 12, 2016.

Thank you for your continued Support and encouragement to research more.

Warm Regards,

Suresh Pandey

@Sureshpandey: It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to pay tribute to anybody. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is neutral source of information for interested readers. To do the kind of thing you describe, you need to create a web page or blog page somewhere. Wikipedia is not appropriate for your needs. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your comments, I belong to Uttarakhand and have studied in Kumaon University and have my Friends who have contributed photographs and content to pay tribute to a legendary freedom fighter Bharat Ratna Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant. Please Include the relevant historic photographs connected to Pandit Pant namely

Pandit Pant with Sardar Patel – It has a lot of historical relevance . Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru & Home Minister Pandit Pant . President Radhakrishna & Home Minister Pandit Pant . Gandhi ji , Jawaharlal Nehru and Pandit Pant. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru & Home Minister Pandit Pant.

The above five photographs are of historical relevance and my view should be part of the wikki page of Pt Pant. Political Science and history students researching in the freedom struggle will be able to relate to the five photographs which have been selected and uploaded in the wikki page of Pt Pant.

Kindly do not remove the photograph from the content since it has historical value.

Regards

Suresh Pandey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshpandey (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sureshpandey: You are simply repeating yourself. You say that these images of historical relevance. But you haven't explained what this relevance is. You need to do so, and do it on the article's talk page so that all the involved editors can assess your input. @RegentsPark and Sitush: can you provide some advice to this user? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)