User talk:Kautilya3

New article

Kautilya3, I believe you are the right person to ask as you are experienced. Please create an article with the title, "Minority appeasement in India". There are many things happening and this is just one instance.

R.I.P. SarahSV

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/Obituary

Edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Hindus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

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

Hi again

Hi again Kautilya, I don't mean to nag you but I just want to bring this to your notice. This user User talk:SuperSonic54 has been making contentious edits that are revolving around a particular "caste". They were warned previously by several editors but they blanked most of the warnings. They removed content here by calling it not constructive. They removed content here claiming that content has no source but a closer examination reveals that is not the case. They made this edit claiming they were making a spelling correction but they actually removed sourced content. I reverted their edit but they once again made the same edit yesterday once again claiming that they were making a spelling correction but in reality they once again removed sourced content. Most of their edits are revolving around Reddy caste. I am not sure how to handle this. Can you help me. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Capture of Kishangarh Fort--RegentsPark (comment) 17:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

G4-ed. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What a strange case of circular copying! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I had completely forgotten about the old AfD. I think that version stayed around for several years. So it is not surprising that it made into a book. I added it to WP:PUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

scholarship for philosophical books

Hi Kautilya3, How are you? I am thinking of writing that article I had started but left half way last year(Vairagya Shatakam by Bhartrihari). It is a great philosophical work. However, the only sources and commentaries I am able to find are by religiousa and Sanskrit scholars. Most are not academic and some are pre-Independence. Is that OK for such topics? For example: https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_9/writings_prose_and_poems/bhartriharis_verses.htm Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi LukeEmily, I think it is ok to base articles on internal scholarship when there are no academic sources. Note, however, that what your mentioned above is a translation, i.e., WP:PRIMARY source. In any case, please create a draft in your user space so that we can look at it and see how it is shaping up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We already have an article. However, in all likelihood, the author was not someone with the name of Bhartṛhari. There are multiple academic sources: see scholarship of Greg Bailey, D. D. Kosambi, and Johannes Bronkhorst among others. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TrangaBellam and Kautilya3.LukeEmily (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Jaipur Dialogues

This page is a pure promotional propaganda by a Right-Winger IAS named Sanjay Dixit. Not notable; full of trivia. Please delete this. I am removing some promotional stuff anyway.

Historical revisionism is happening at Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram. Hindu Right Wing is attacking on Mahatma Gandhi's legacy by claiming he had stolen the Bhajan. Also, Wikipedia was the first place to report such rubbish claim in the past which led many sources to post this. Clean it up please!

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bullying, Civility

HI not sure why you are posting on my talk page. Do you have me mixed up with someone else?Xoltron (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah Ok I did some research and realized you are trying to bully me based on a discussion I started on the Indo-Aryan Languages talk page. What you are doing here is highly inappropriate and it's not how wikipedia works. I am sorry that you are apparently angry and upset, but engaging in outright fraudulent accusations is not how we do things on Wikipdiea. Please Consider this a warning and refrain from engaging in further bullying activities.