User talk:Kautilya3

IVC and Indo-Aryans

Interesting comment:

The IVC was already in decline when the Indo-Aryans arrive, and it is not a long shot to consider that there may have been conflicts between city-states for limited resources, or even incursions from outside. In this situation, with more men dying fighting, the steppe arrivals may easily have been welcomed as warrior rulers who could protect their subjects, and the males would have had ample single and widowed females to marry.

Or they were hired as soldiers, just like the Germans were hired by the Romans, and eventually took over the Empire? The IVC already was in contact with the BMAC, before both declined. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the horse, the chariot, Dasas, Dasis and the jehadism in Rigveda are all consistent with a sex-dominated expansion. As far as South Asia is concerned, there is no reason to suppose that the expansion in the first millennium BC would have worked any differently from that in the second millennium AD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your constructive correction of an edit that I had just made (the link to the Concerned citizens report). I will make the change accordingly. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

PS - I have added a similar request on the talk page Notthebestusername (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar Dhanbad

Anyone can actually remove a PROD tag, even the article creator. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Bholanath and Devendra Pandey

--Marvellous Spider-Man 09:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

List of battles in the Indian subcontinent

Hi, thanks for reverting Coconut1002's edits. In case you are unaware, List of battles in the Indian subcontinent was moved from List of Indian battles. I'm unsure if this needs to be reverted as well. Thanks—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Captain, yes, I noticed the page move. But I am ok with the new title, given the ambiguities associated with the term "India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Évian Conference

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Évian Conference. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.76.131.160 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hi bud, in response to your mail, I have no idea who the IP is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Longquan celadon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Longquan celadon. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Dardic peoples

To clarify with you, the category removal was because Dardic peoples are a subgrouping of Indo-Aryan peoples, which in turn are a subgrouping of Indo-Iranian (or Indo-Iranic however you may call it) peoples. So removing the Indo-Iranian peoples category from the article is a correct move as Indo-Aryan is a subgrouping of Indo-Iranian peoples tagged as such in the category page. Now you got it?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The category you have removed is for "Indo-Aryan peoples". There is no "Indo-Iranian" in sight. What on earth are you talking about?

Have you forgotten my admonition only a few days ago that any deviation from WP:BRD counts as WP:Edit warring? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are not getting it. The article is tagged under category:Indo-Aryan peoples. Indo-Aryan peoples are a subgrouping of Indo-iranian peoples (orIndo-Iranic if you prefer). That's why I removed category:Indo-iranian peoples from the article and left it at category:Indo-Aryan peoples.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction, I removed Category:Indo-Aryan peoples from the article and placed it under category:Dardic peoples as the lattar is a subgrouping of the former. I think that should clear it up.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Good thing you struck out the last message because it was nonsense. But your first message was the same kind of nonsense and should be struck out too.

What you have done is circular. 'Dardic peoples' are not a subcategory of themselves. As per WP:CAT, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. So please revert yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir Singh Katoch

Hello.

You seem to have taken umbrage at my edits to this officers service. I have cross referenced the changes - most are from various editions of the Indian Army List. My specialty is 20th century Indian Army officers and I have edited leaving the same references as I have used today on many occasions - what precisely do you not like? Regards NWFrontier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWFrontier (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The "full citation" should include the exact title, publisher, date and page number. You can see all the other citations in the article and follow their example. The fact that you have done it wrong on previous occasions doesn't mean that you should continue doing so.

This archived document says that the Indian Army List was issued quarterly. So your citation claiming "1936 Indian Army List" is highly inadequate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you are making an unfortunate assumption - during the 20th century the Indian Army List frequency of issue did change. At times it was monthly, at others quarterly also appeared half-yearly, let alone the most secret war time issues which do not follow the sequence.

As well I did not just say "1936 Indian Army List" I always gave the issue it came from, such as "October 1936 Indian Army list". Refraining from mentioning if it was a quarterly or not does not affect the citation - the published title of the "October 1936 Indian Army list" is "The Indian Army List October 1936". I give sufficient information for anyone to track down the correct issue I quoted. The books are pre-ISBN and do not lend themselves to simple citation. The statement "Issued Quarterly" does appear on the front page but does not form part of the title of the book.

I am sorry but I don't agree with your approach - it may be academically correct procedure but it does not invalidate what I have done or what other editors have done. Different to you, yes, but wrong - I do not think so. I improved the vague writing given with hard fact.

I am lucky - I have physical copies of the Indian Army Lists (they are scarce to find) that I have referenced and I know they have an index which if anyone consulted would give them access to the information I used. So would anyone else who had ever used one. NWFrontier —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

Just seeing the undone edits now. Haven't had time for Wikipedia of late. Initial intent was primarily to update page to include more recent information, as there was several years missing in the entry, as well as some factual errors (essentially allegations presented as documented fact). If you think it needs more sourcing or a change in tone, happy to go back in and do so. --RightPoint (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your edit gives primacy to what the organisation says about itself, which is against Wikipedia policies. Content should be based on reliable third party sources. I also don't think you should have described the edit as a "copy edit", which is expected to mean rewriting the text without altering the meaning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please apply at New page patrolling rights page

Hello Kautilya, you are a dedicated and active contributor please apply for page patrolling rights on this page. It would have been a pleasure to nominate you. But unfortunately only users by their will can apply there. Please help in reducing the back log at Newpages There are only 400+ patrollers whereas more than 17,000 pages are unreviewed. Please help us there. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you got the rights please patroll pages here Newpages. Thanks Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: thanks for alerting me about new page patrolling. Unfortunately, I can't commit any more time to Wikipedia than I already do. So I would rather not take any more responsibilities. You might try asking some of the newer members, because they may not yet have large commitments and might welcome getting involved in regular Wikipedia tasks. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dalits

I think you may have commented in the wrong talk page section. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

KAMMA NAIDU

Why can't u change the name of Kamma caste Wikipedia page to Kamma Naidu..... 70% Kammas use Naidu as caste title and it is almost synonymous both Naidu and Kamma like Reddy though reddy is used by many castes. Anjana Chaudhari and some more wiki pages r similar to that. Likewise Virender Rag (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Because our guidance is WP:COMMONNAME. Even assuming you are right about your 70 per cent figure, that is just hearsay and we do not pander to the vanity of people but rather work off reliable sources. When the majority of reliable sources start calling the community Kamma Naidu, Wikipedia will also. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We need to use the term that appears in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But most of the sources say as Kamma Naidu only. Even in Tamil Nadu government records it is Kamma Naidu....not simply Kamma......Kamma Naidu term appears everywer.......what could be the better sources than government records? In my opinion Kamma Naidu page will be more apting rather than just KAMMA because since 1000 years both terms Naidu and Kamma are made journey together and both r mutually associated with each other Virender Rag (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The new Indian President

If you've got some time you should take a look at his bio: it's in bad shape, but is likely to receive half a million views over the next few days. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)