User talk:Kautilya3

Nepali TV

Anybody know enough Nepali to make out what this Nepali TV programme is saying? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA can you help an editor in need. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

or User:Rawal Bishal--DBigXrayᗙ 18:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If it is just describing the wiki page, that is no big deal. But the visuals showed the edit history too. That is what I am curious about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The tweet is talking about Kalapani territory. It criticizes Wikipedia editors for claiming their opinions on the article. It also talks about the article vastly changing between each revision and the current edit war between editors. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have further queries let me know.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, The tweet reads essentially :- Following a sustained edit war between Nepali and Indian POVpushers at Kalapani territory, the article has now been edit-protected.

The video says essentially :- Kalapani territory was created almost 10 years ago and usually says that Kalapani is a disputed territory between Nepal's Darchula and Uttarakhand's Pithauragarh. It was edited very sparingly during that time. However, later on, Indian users began to claim that it lies in Uttarakhand. Last week has seen a huge amount of activity from Nepali and Indian users in this article. After India [recently] released a [new] map showing Kalapani as part of India, Nepali and Indian users have been having a tussle on this article for their own preferred versions.

The reply by Suraj Paneru says essentially:- India uses a huge number of RSS cadres and bots to spread propaganda and fake news to suit its narrative, in the internet. Even for the December UK election, India is doing the same, to make sure its preferred party and leadership wins. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you CAPTAIN MEDUSA and Usedtobecool. It is true that "Indian editors" changed it to "Kalapani, Uttarakhand" until I changed it back. My feeling is however that the Nepalese can give the RSS a run for their money, any day. I have seen only one sane Nepali voice during the whole affair. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, it takes courage to show sanity in the current climate. For example, I'm sane but I don't advertise it. I still mostly blame Indian foreign policy though. Every time Nepalis begin to wonder if they have judged India too harshly (Operation Maitri), India defaults back to the same old cluelessness (2015 Nepal blockade). I mean, Nepalis will be Nepalis, but with all its intellectual might, if India can't devise a brilliant scheme to win over even the Nepalis, what hope does South Asia have? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 20:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, this video describes this situation very well. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA, quite! LOL! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Indians are not particularly brilliant, and even if they were, it all gets expended on Kashmir and Pakistan. There will be little left for Nepal. It looks like Kalapani is going to be Nepal's Aksai Chin. Worthless, but the centre of its pride. So nothing is possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I wouldn't worry about it. Nepalis haven't suddenly started feeling strongly about it. Things stir up, then they settled down again. No one is making a fuss because they believe they can get Kalapani back, they're doing it because they consider it their patriotic duty and they want it known that Nepal doesn't quietly let things go just because the outcome is hopeless. Nepalis have made feature films about Kalapani a few times already. Then there is Susta and then "Buddha was born in Nepal" to cycle through. As long as Nepalis believe that BSF's main job is harassing Nepalis during the day, and moving border posts in the night, this is gonna keep coming up whenever it's politically favourable to make an issue of, for one party or another. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 03:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, This is the article which was board casted in Kantipur Television before a week to say that this article is bised and Indians are only writing it as their knowledge. This also describes why Nepalese wikipedia is not so strong. Rawal Bishal (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Rawal. I am afraid it is going to be even more "biased" now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, when things began, I did think it was slightly biased, but nothing that's not explained by the fact that it's just a start class article. Now that you've started working on it, it will only get better. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 03:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thank you for your confidence. I will do my best. I have good enough sources for the 19th century history, but extremely little for the 20th century. Both the Indian and Nepalese governments have been extremely tight-lipped about what they were doing, leading to basically speculative history-writing by the Nepalese commentators and not even that by the Indians. So that is where I am stuck at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, that sounds about right. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Nepalese idea of a dialogue? I wonder what soneka chidiya is supposed to mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  Kautilya3, obviously it's to do with "gold" and "bird". The Golden Bird or The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs or something else, I can not tell; but pretty sure the advice is that Indians shouldn't steal it from the Nepalese. I'm impressed by the diplomacy though. Usually, the default presumption is- "Considering India is on the wrong when it comes to Nepal, it's gotta be on the wrong side of all other conflicts it's involved in also, be it Pakistan, China or Bangladesh." Beware the instinct to generalise, though. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I was impressed with the diplomacy too. Soneka chidiya perhaps has the sense of "my dear"? DBigXray?

However, in all the debates, I see an overwhelming sense of the land as real estate, with no awareness of the people that actually live there. Sudurpaschim, far-away borderland, we have no idea what is there. But it shows up on our maps, which really matter.

Incidentally, I have been looking into the 2015 crisis. These two articles: Hari Bansh Jha, and Kanak Mani Dixit seem to exemplify the divide. I was once again impressed with Dixit's dismissal of the "Madheswadi leaders" as having no connection to the Madhesi people themselves! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sone ka chidiya literally means "Golden Sparrow". Used to refer the golden age of India. I am surprised folks are not aware of this reference to India. [1] [2] [3] [4]--DBigXrayᗙ 16:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, Indeed. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, On your first point, isn't that the case with all border disputes? Otherwise, it'd be as simple as holding a referendum on what they want. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Holding a referendum may not be "simple" as the Kashmir conflict illustrates. But, still, settling the matters as per the wishes of the people that live there, is the ideal that all countries should aspire to. Paying absolutely no attention to the people at all is only worthy of a feudal estate rather then a "country".

I felt like putting up this POV map of a section of the Nepalese opinion, because it is apparently endorsed by Buddhi Narayan Shreshtha, the former Suveyor General of Nepal. A similar map also appears in his published work with the label "Greater Nepal". If the elites promote such irredentist views, what hope do common people have? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I agree with you on principle, but it's of course just ideal. If there were chance that Madhesis could vote themselves out of Nepal, no madhesis would ever get Nepali citizenship, the border might even get closed for immigration. It's precisely because borders are real-estatey that Madhesis have been allowed to settle in Nepal and even get citizenship. I suppose it's the same with Pahari Nepalese in the north-east India. Everyone's getting their own states, but for the Nepalese in Gorkhaland, how do you explain it?

We have a saying - "In the country of the speech impaired, the goitred become the strong men", which takes me back to my first comment, Nepalis will be Nepalis, so south Asia doesn't have hope if India's intellectual might can't find a path for us all. That said, Greater Nepal has nothing to do with Kalapani. Kalapani begins with accepting the Sugauli treaty with the British India which says Nepal and India will be separated in the west by the Kali river, the dispute is all about which of the small rivulets that make up the Kali river is the actual Kali. Greater Nepal argument says that Nepal ceded the territories to the British, so when the Brits left India the treaty was voided and the territory automatically came back to Nepal, legally speaking. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean that people should have a choice to vote themselves out of anything. Even though that kind of thing is now considered a reasonable expectation in the West, I don't think South Asia is anywhere close to that level of maturity. But my comment had more to do with the Limpiyadhura claim that even intelligent people like Buddhi Narayan Shreshtha make, with no cognizance of the fact that people live there. Asking for a real estate deal on Kalapani is one thing, but Limpiyadhura is an entirely different ball game. I don't believe that independent India will ever engage in such real estate deals. (The British did such things, but they are gone.)

The Greater Nepal claim is also a similar real estate view of the matter. It is even more laughable because nobody imagines that a 12-year feudal occupation implies that those lands have become perpetually "Nepalese". All those people regard it as a bad dream that quickly came to an end.

As for Madhesis, I won't say too much because I don't know enough about what is going on. But what I mean by "Madhesi" are the people native to the Tarai lands that Nepal either conquered or obtained from the British in real estate deals. I would hope that those people get treated as full-fledged citizens of Nepal.

As for Gorkhaland, there has been an expectation in India that a province/state has to be of a certain size to be viable. That is slowly changing, because India has found that small states can perform well too (examples being Puducheri and Goa). But the places will have to demonstrate that they can manage themselves. An autonomous council is a good first step. Usually, a union territory is the second step (like Ladakh right now), and statehood the third step. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Greater Nepal including the Tibetan expansions

It is a pity that the beautiful map of Greater Nepal has disappeared. I replaced it by a poor substitute. But here are some choice words from Buddhi Narayan Shrestha to make for its loss:

2. As the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India signed on July 31, 1950 and the Treaty between Nepal and the United Kingdom on October 30, 1950 had annulled and invalidated all previous treaties and agreements, thus Nepal should have territorial rights over the areas of Greater Nepal, lost in the Sugauli Treaty.

3. After India gained independence from the British rule, there is no treaty, agreement and understanding regarding domination of the territory of Greater Nepal by the Republic of India. Thus the land captured by British from Nepal should no longer remain under present India’s dominion.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Nationalist sentiments

@Kautilya3 Please remove your national sentiments while editing Wikipedia. You are thoroughly biased in Kalapani territory. You are not being neutral. You are showing that Nepal is the one that has illegally laid claim over Kalapani when even old Indian gazettes show it that the Indian govt is the encroacher. I do not like to hurt general Indians but the govt of India are sons of bitches who have faked up and fooled their citizens in the name of nationaity. Everything is blocked and controlled by Indian Wikipedians. Wikipedia is looking like the BCCI that controls ICC with undue influence.

भारतीय राजपत्र भन्छ : लिम्पियाधुरा नेपालकै हो - 103.28.86.145 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP editor (103.28.86.145), welcome to Wikipedia. You would be better off registering an account here, so that we can communicate better.

Please see my response at Talk:Kalapani territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is looking like the BCCI that controls ICC with undue influence. LOL .... ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Yaldor Sub Sector wiki page

Hi Kautilya3 talk this is regarding the Yaldor wiki page you helped update, i had created the page more than 3 months ago, it should have been reviewed by now, any idea why that has not happened. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Joydeep ghosh, you mean why hasn't it been assessed? I can do it now if you wish, but I would put it as "start" class. You can do better by adding an infobox and map, and describing the location and geography better. There need be no mention of the Kargil War in the section called "Terrain and weather". There is a citation needed tag in the lead, which is a bad sign. Also, it is my understanding that the Kargil infiltration was discovered for the first time by the shephereds of Yaldor. If true, that should be mentioned. That goes to its notability. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 talk i made some additions see if now the page is worth review btw if i remember correctly it was probably you who added the citation needed tag. hope this helps. I would be glad if you can review the page. :-) Joydeep ghosh (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 talk can you review the Yaldor wiki page, i have added a lot more info that make it worthy. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joydeep ghosh, it is not the amount of information, but the quality of information that is assessed. It is still start-class. In fact, I believe the article is headed in a wrong direction because it is not about the village of Yaldor at all. Rather it is about the Kargil War in that sector. It may be better to change this page to something like Batalik–Yaldor sector, and describe the entire infiltration and campaigns in that sector. That is a much larger task. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 talk thanks for input but problem is anything/anyplace related to kargil war will have a mention about the war either in detail or in snippets and with this village being focal point of the war besides kargil and batalik, where everything started there will be such mentions.Joydeep ghosh (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Joydeep ghosh, "Yaldor" means many things. There is the village of course, but the village is named after the nala. The valley is also probably named after the nala. Then there is the area that the army calls the Yaldor sector, or Batalik-Yaldor sector or even Batalik-Yaldor-Chorbatla sector. It needs to be clear what concepts are covered on this page. See Tinkar for a recent page that I worked on with similar issues. (No war there though.)

If you don't agree with my rating, you can add "|reassess=y" option to the assessment template, asking for another reviewer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 talk its not that i dont like your feedback everything has a scope improvement, liked your work unfortunately as you said war here but no war there, i believe the battkes need mention since the village was used as base to carry out military ops even after kargil war ended, this is why i am giving reasons for the village's significance and the military activities occuring in and around the village that had significant impact during and after kargil war. i hope i have tried to give my reason, anyways will try to improve it further. thanks. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 talk could you please help review this page and help make it live.Joydeep ghosh (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eli Cohen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eli Cohen. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You seem to be edit warring The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. You are blindly reverting many edits made by me on multiple different issues (mention of Muslims, sourcing of Nasrin's comments etc). You have already made 4 reverts in 24 hours:[5],[6],[7],[8].

Slightly outside that 24 hour window, you made an additional revert[9], for a total of 5 reverts in slightly over 24 hours.

I urge to self-revert your last revert.Bless sins (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, here are each of your reverts and the edit(s) they reverted: 1.[10]. Was a reversion of this edit[11]. 2.[12]. Was a reversion of this edit[13]. 3. [14]. Removed large amounts of content made in several edits, including this one[15]. 4.[16]. Removed most of the content added in this edit[17]. 5.[18]. Reverted these two edits[19][20].

Bless sins (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments that make little sense

Additionally you have reverted my edits under summaries that make little sense. Consider this[21]: "WP:Edit warring; WP:Lead fixation; please obtain WP:CONSENSUS first". The edits they revert did not even touch the lead. How could edits to the main body of an article be guilty of "lead fixation"?Bless sins (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook your edit as changing the lead. I have reinstated it now.

That having said, you have noticed that addressing the Muslim exclusion in the Bill has been in discussion long before you have arrived. You are welcome to take part in that and contribute to reaching a WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sir, please visit "Indo-Pak war of 1971" page and re-edit things

Someone has changed pakistani casualties to "2,200+ killed" which is very wrong as they suffered 2,200+ killed in the eastern front alone. Overall Pakistani casualties are some 8,000 killed according to most of the sources. Sir, I am unable to re-edit that page because it's protected. I request you to re-edit the casualties section. Thanks. Hard654 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hard654, I took care of it. In future, please raise such issues on the talk pages of the articles, and somebody will address them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, sir. I definitely will. I took this matter to you because I've seen you making corrections which are genuine and accurate. You're among the best people I could contact to raise this issue. Thanks again and god bless you. Hard654 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sarah Palin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sarah Palin. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship Amendment Bill or Act

Hello Kautilya3 Sir, I am a ~~ps.prashantsingh16~~ a new user of Wikipedia so i don't know everything about it. You left me a message on talk page, i read it. Thank you for your Guidance, Teaching, Parenting, Helping and Love for me. If I have any questions or problems i surely asked you. Present Time when I go to my Talk Page, Wikipedia shows me I am a Block . So i want to know why I am a Block and can you unblock me. If you have Powers please unblock me. This help i need to you. & again thanks for your help and love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps.prashantsingh16 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ps.prashantsingh16, you are not blocked. But the page on Citizenship Amendment has been protected to new editors due to persistent disruptive editing. You need to edit other topics until you gain some experience and get get "autoconfirmed" as an established editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• A consequence of getting Modi and the BJP pages to the GA level has been that no-one has updated them with information about the recent activities of the government. It's been on my to-do list, but any assistance would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, It looks like Narendra Modi is finished. It is Amit Shah's government now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

On 16 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good work. I just pinged you from an edit summary. The NE protests need to be clarified on the protests page. please take a look and improve when you can. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit dispute

Correct me if I'm wrong but why the revert on the CAA page? I agree that my summary was not fully representative of the edit I made. How is the meaning changed inaccurately when the earlier revision had it wrong? StreetSoda_{talk 00:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)}

If you believed the phrasing was distorted, better thing to have done is to review my edits and keep the ones that made sense while deleting the nonsensical bits. The older edit certainly made the text confusing.

The first change and the last change are wrong, the last one especially. The other edits are mundane and not worth bothering about.

When multiple changes are made in an edit, it is normal practice to revert the whole thing and let the editor figure out what to retain and what to throw out.

But frankly, if you add a not in front of a clause and call it a grammatical change, I am sorry, I don't have any polite words to describe it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The earlier revision without the not is wrong as per the referenced article. Also, the other edits are not mundane since the inherent meaning was not conveyed properly. Clarity is important especially in the lead section. StreetSodatalk 21:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Then you should state what the source says that leads you to the conclusion that the sentence was "wrong". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

One would think a veteran user such as yourself would take the courtesy to do a rather quick fact check before reverting edits. I suppose such a day is yet to arrive. Adios. StreetSoda_{talk 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)}

A request for more care in your comments

Kautilya3: When first I read your comment here, I thought it an insulting insinuation of ulterior motive. Then, after considering further, I decided that perhaps, though my edit appeared to me to be a clear improvement of the text, you might genuinely have felt that it distorted some aspect of the content. I bring this to your attention now so you will be aware of my initial perception of your comment. Please, in future, do not address me (or hopefully any other editor) in a manner that suggests lack of good faith, makes an unfounded accusation, or impugns my motives in editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. Dayirmiter (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with a nationalist editor

Hi Kautilya I have recently come across a editor who is blatantly pushing an agenda he keeps removing categories regarding Jammu and Kashmir being a territory disputed by Pakistan but Gilgit Baltistan categorie section mentions Territorial disputes of India why is there bias? He is also blindly removing History of distillation section because it mentions Pakistan please assist. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what Kautilya can help you with when you are the one hounding me, making personal attacks and baseless accusations. Point me to a edit in which I have removed cats from a JK article incorrectly, I don't even remember doing that. With Distillation I was just removing edits by a blocked account, your personal attacks in that particular article's edit summary don't make your claims any better. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have clearly shown your pov cats edits on your page playing dumb here wont help you cannot bare any mention of Pakistan in historical terms thats why you push the Indian subcontinent term onto every page with that generic edit summary of "rvt pov edits" Kautilya please do check the users contributions clearly a nationalistic tily. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)