User talk:Kautilya3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:13, 5 August 2020

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Interest in your work

Hi Kautilya3,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LailaAtTrustLab (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A.C.A.B. 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 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La and Cho La clashes

Would you care to explain why a revert was done? Pride of India, does not outweight facts. Quite the irony you got the "anti vandalism star" It was also you that literally pasted "Chinese myths" in to the 2020 talk section regarding the LAC to mock the Chinese. Not very respectful. A "false balance" does not exist, unless the other source was a credible source. If it literally uses Indian National Defence Agency's data, its ought to be removed altogether. Yet it was kept, every single time. This is Wikipedia. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YuukiHirohiko, you need to start reading WP:edit summaries, where reasons for reverts are explained. My edit summary said, "Infobox changes require WP:CONSENSUS". So please go to the talk page, make a proposal, present your sources and get all the involved editors to agree.

You should also stop casting WP:Aspersions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations."

Sorry but you were REGULARLY reverting my edits and I don't see it being an aspersion. Calling out what you are doing I see is reasonable and appropriate to the current situation of bias in both articles.

You are actively defending the onesided nature of both articles, and I don't see this action improving Wikipedia one bit. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user Kautilya3 is targeting edits of users providing necessary information to particular lot of wikipedia articals. This user actively destroys balanced structure of an artical and tries to shape his/her own imagination which is far away from ground reality. It seems user is having multiple accounts through which he/she misuses tags and falsely claim on several occasions. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this diagram work?

I am trying to find a way of showing that the sex ratio (or gender ratio) in many places in J&K varies with religion. I used a cut off of 2,000 (i.e. if there are less than 2,000 people in a category, and the people are included in "others"). The total figure is the same as the headline figure that is normally counted.

Sex ratio in Srinagar District in 2011 Census (no. females per 1,000 males)
Religion (and population)			Sex Ratio
Hindu (pop 42,540)			184
Muslim (pop 1,177,342)			945
Christian (pop 2,746)			551
Sikh (pop 12,187)			747
Other (pop 2,014)			666
Total (pop 1,236,829)			900

I do not like the term sex ratio, and I do not like the way that it is represented as females per 1,000 males, but it is used by sources. To my way of thinking, the % of females in the population is more intuitive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it works well. Are these numbers are for real? The differences are quite shocking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - and this kind of relationship is present in many (but not all) districts of J&K and Ladakh.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of territorial entities where Hindustani is an official language

Hi K3! Have you seen this[1] new page? I deliberately give you the link before I made some fixes of the most blatant errors. If F&f weren't on vacation, I would ping him to the page, too. The whole thing is quite not WP:NPOV. –Austronesier (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we go with F&f's idea of Hindi-Urdu, such pages wouldn't exist! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a good idea for many reasons, and we would keep most if not all subpages called "Hindustani XXX" renamed to "Hindi–Urdu XXX". The most challenging part would be a really good History of Hindi–Urdu that reflects the partially irreconcilable POVs instead of ignoring them. But that's another story :) –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite name for the original language is "Hindavi" rather than Hindustani. Amir Khusro having coined the term (or at least popularised it), I think all speakers of Hindi-Urdu can own it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Hindavi" has the charm of not having undergone the connotational change of both "Hindi" and "Hindustani". It wouldn't qualify for WP:COMMONNAME based on recognizabilty (even less than Hindustani), but would be a perfect in-text designation to be used in a historal discussion of the "unbifurcated" language that existed until (depending on POV) until the mid-18th or mid-19th century. –Austronesier (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian border dispute

Dear Kautilya, since I am not around always, please take care of this edit I spent whole day creating, Talk:Sino-Indian_border_dispute#Added_new_sections. Feel free to add edit tags, leave me a message if more changes are needed, otherwise feel free to make incremental enhancements/cleanup, etc. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I don't see how this content belongs on that page at all. Border dispute has nothing to do with military deployments etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to know reliablity of this source

Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (2002). Education and the disprivileged: nineteenth and twentieth century India . This book has been cited in a page but I doubt its reliability but I want to confirm with you before proceeding with any changes. Kindly inform me about its reliability. EruTheLord (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EruTheLord, it is an edited collection published by Orient Longmann (Orient Blackswan), an academic publisher. So, it is de facto, reliable. Of course, the various contributors may be of varying quality. That has to be discussed in context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one more request a vandal named vanni kumar repeatedly vandalising the Damarla chenappa nayaka page. I cant handle him. Kindly protect the protect the page or block him after reverting. EruTheLord (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EruTheLord, you need to engage with him and discuss the issues. There is no other way. It is a content dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I just say your edit in Kamma page. You were editing a source . The book is considered not reliable by Sitush. It is better to remove that citation . It shows up the same page as it did previously. EruTheLord (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Sitush is concerned about it, he will raise it at the article talk page. If you are concerned about it, you are welcome to raise it at the talk page. That is how Wikipedia discussions happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that isn't quite what I said on my talk page. When asked, I said we didn't really need it for a particular point because there was another reliable source there. I also said that I couldn't see the source in question but the title didn't sound too relevant. I see from this edit that it is a chapter by Christophe Jaffrelot and, of course, he is definitely ok to cite. We use him quite a lot for caste stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Home Affairs

Afghanistan is the boarder of India according to the Ministry of Home Affairs. please look at this link https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/BMIntro-1011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravaneee (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sravaneee, Gunji is supposedly a village of Nepal according to their constitution. Do you think Wikipedia should allow that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

Hello, you put ARBIPA sanctions alert in my talk page without mentioning any reason. Could you explain? I also noticed that you are putting deletion tag in Gunji Village, Nepal repetitively in spite I mentioned that Gunji, Uttarakhand is disputed territory and have requested both pages for protection. nirmal (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nirmaljoshi, ARBIPA sanctions apply to all India/Pakistan/Afghanistan-related pages, and anybody that edits those pages is likely to get an alert of the applicable sanctions.

The alert states that you are accountable for following all the applicable policies. If you don't do so, you can face sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

Thanks for your email. Yes, you are right. This is to do with.[2][3][4] He/she has a new ID now.[5]

I have done some language pie charts at your suggestion.

For colours I have kept:

Hindi as always yellow,
languages with a mother tongue code that starts 006 as pink and orange colours (e.g. Ambedkar Nagar district)
Urdu as always red,
Other as always black

I used the trimming rule that anything with less than 0.5% was included in others - i.e. the table gives a bit more detail - the reason was that below 0.5% it does not show in a pie chart.

By having a planned colour scheme it shows how very different somewhere like Faizabad district is from Kargil district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot for all your efforts! It is very useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junagadh

So, a "new map" was released by the government of Pakistan which people believe has newly shown areas of Junagadh and Junagadh district and have added this claim (as if its new) to the articles. This is misleading since official maps of Pakistan have always shown these claims and from what I can tell there is absolutely nothing new in the map except a few words and demarcating the LOC up to Siachen which Pakistan has long claimed as well (official map from 2018, "new map"). So what should be done here, should the edits be removed or added with a clarification to the body (should obviously not be in the lead). Gotitbro (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro I left a comment on the talk page with regards to your revert/edit. I will support the second suggestion, namely that the dispute be summarised in the body but not necessarily in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we should stop chasing the newspapers which, with their limited knowledge, start sensationalising routine matters. "New map" has become a catch-phrase for substandard media to grab the readers' attention. I have reverted this once. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 You are actively defending the onesided nature of both articles, and I don't see this action improving Wikipedia one bit.
 [[User:YuukiHirohiko|YuukiHirohiko]] ([[User talk:YuukiHirohiko|talk]]) 09:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
+The user Kautilya3 is targeting edits of users providing necessary information to particular lot of wikipedia articals. This user actively destroys balanced structure of an artical and tries to shape his/her own imagination which is far away from ground reality. It seems user is having multiple accounts through which he/she misuses tags and falsely claim on several occasions.  [[User:Kswarrior|Kswarrior]] ([[User talk:Kswarrior|talk]]) KLS 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 == Does this diagram work? ==