User talk:Kautilya3

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 Talk:BBC World Service 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 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Campus Front of India and Social Democratic Party of India

Hello! Saw your undo on Campus Front of India - I noticed that Social Democratic Party of India may have had the same copy-pasted information. I did a revert, could you please check me and make sure it looks good? Thanks. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 02:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Matthewrb. I have watchlisted that page now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Need Your Help

Hi. I created a page few years ago which is now tagged for deletion. The person who nominated it says that it is not notable and references are not credible. However, the references are credible and it's a notable topic. There's a category for this page and there are others too. I explored more about the nominator and came across this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement under Hemantha. Can you please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohak_Bariatrics_and_Robotics and let me know if the nominator has done the right thing? Edwige9 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Edwige9, yes, the AfD nomination is certainly a good faith one. Other editors will look at the page and assess the claims. You are advised to take their feedback into account if you want to improve or recreate the page at a later time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya! Edwige9 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving on Hijab Row Talk Page

Hey, I see that the archiving system on Hijab Row Talk Page isn't working that well. Posts inactive for more than a week haven't been archived yet. I think the OneClickArchiver bot is a manual system? Can you perhaps educate me on how this bot can be used? I saw you have used it in past on this page but I cant understand how do I use it on a talk page on which this is set up. >>> Extorc.talk(); 06:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Extorc, I am the last one to be able to help on tech. All I did was to follow the instructions listed on the OneclickArchivver page. It didn't work for a long time and then suddenly it did. I suspect that there may be interference with other tools/scripts etc.

On the talk page itself, the bot is set to archive threads that have been inactive for 7 days. Those are the only threads we should be archiving, when done manually. But I admit that I sometimes archive recent edit-requests too, provided they have been answered. Sometimes they crowd out the productive discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a bit of answered, or inactive sections there. I might archive them mannually. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Advice on Copyvio

Hi, would you look into this edit made on Campus Front of India which seems to be copied from the source to a large extent and seems to be a WP:COPYVIO. This is the first CopyVio I have spotted so wanted to confirm and also wanted to know what is the appropriate way to warn the editor for those edits? >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it was COPYVIO, but it was well done. I rewrot the passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Twitter attack

[1] and [2]. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, are we supposed to discuss Twitter here the way they discuss Wikipedia? No thanks. Let them be. If some of their folks come over here and open Wikipedi accounts, we will see what they can accomplish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Did you notice it is Sanjeev Sanyal tweeting? Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is not the first time. He did so first when his page got edited based on The Caravan article, and asked his followers to get it fixed. They failed to do very much. So they continue to throw stones from a safe distance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Popular Front of India

I would like to add a statement on the page Popular Front of India that the organization has been involved in clashes with the Sangh Parivar over past years.

The sentence I would like to add is as follows. "Kerala and Karnataka have often witnessed violent clashes between workers of the Popular Front of India and the Sangh Parivar." Neutralhappy (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That should be fine. Please clean up the citation so that the author and date fields are clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The authors are not displayed in the source. Moreover date except retrieved date is not shown for one source. So I humbly request your opinion about adding the above sentence. Thanks. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You can fix the citations manually. (I presume you used some automated tool, which couldn't parse the info correctly.) For example:

    |last=Dec 20 |first=TNN / Updated: |last2=2021 |last3=Ist |first3=04:18

is showing the author (TNN) and the date in a badly mauled way. Such citations need to be fixed manually. It is quite bad to cite news articles without the date of publication. See WP:Full citation. It is not important to use citation templates, but it is important to include all the required information.

I have already said that the content is fine. Please feel free to add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the content. I think the introduction about the the PFI given in the webpage without date of publication is going to updated time to time. Moreover the content in the webpage can be used to give an introduction about the PFI very well since it contains years when things happened. Moreover it contains more descriptive words about the PFI such as 'militant', 'extremist' 'Muslim' rather than 'Islamic'. So I want to include content from this webpage. By the retrieved date will be shown which, when the published not given, is enough, especially this particular case on this subject now.

Are you OK with me changing the term "Islamic" to "Muslim" in the fist line of page Popular Front of India.

How about adding the term "militant'in its first line to describe the PFI? I am eagerly waiting for your response. Neutralhappy (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't decide these things on our own. We have to summarise what the sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing misunderstanding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1075282224 I apologize. I am sorry for the misunderstanding caused by the explanation I gave for adding the page Pseudohistory in its See also section. Actually there is a need for adding that page in See also section because the angle of pseudohistory is often viewed in the discussion about the Malabar rebellion. I need you opinion in this matter. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:CATDEF, you can add only those categories that are prominently mentioned as characterising the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Purple Barnstar
	Thank you, Kautilya3, for continuing to contribute neutral and reliably sourced content to India-related articles on Wikipedia in the face of off-wiki harassment. Your perseverance is what keeps Wikipedia trustworthy for our readers. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Newslinger. This comes at a great time when I am trying to gather up enough courage to add America's culpability in the Ukraine situation. Wish me luck! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a challenging topic to work on. Good luck! — Newslinger talk 00:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Punjabis

Hi, it is to bring these to your attention. Would you kindly have a look? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Most Punjabis are muslims

I have added citations. Most Punjabis are muslims. But you have changed all the edits.

80.5 million Punjabis in Pakistan and 30 million In India.

Why did you change the edits? MT111222 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I added census data from both countries as evidence. But you have reversed all the edits.

Please change it back to how i wrote it because i had added all the citations. MT111222 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

MT111222, which citation said anything close to "Most Punjabis are Muslims"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of the census data information?

There are 80 million muslim Punjabis in Pakistan. There are 30 million Indian Hindus and Sikhs.

So Punjabi muslims are the majority. It is common sense. MT111222 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So I gather that you don't have a citation that states the information you choose to present. In that case, the right thing for you to do is to make a proposal on the article's talk page and obtain WP:CONSENSUS, which is a requirement. For the census data again, if you disagree with the existing data, you need to state the correction on the talk page and obtain consensus. If you continue to edit war you are liable to get blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding BRD

I had a question, wont the first introduction of material by Venkat [3] count as Bold, with my removal [4] as Revert, and onus on Venkat to Discuss? Another editor had pointed this out([5], sixth paragraph). This is in reference to the ADE filed by Tayi.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. But that was a few days earlier, and you didn't say in your edit summary that it was a partial revert. So we would tend to regard it as a normal edit.

Nevertheless, trying to argue about who should discuss isn't productive. Either side can discuss. The earlier the better. As soon as it is clear that there is a disagreement and it is not going to get resolved through edit summaries, discussion is in order. A quick succession of "BRR" only blows up, no matter how it started. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Present case

Hi, In your reply you have said "Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case." I am posting here to seek clarification from you, to be sure that I am not the one with the mistaken belief.

As far as I can see this case is about User:CapJackspr and not just about the article TekFog. The OP may have used examples from TekFog to show the problematic behavior. And I have shared more examples from other articles made by user CapJackSpr. Any user can bring examples about this user for the admins to review. Why then are you claiming that "C1,C2 C3 have nothing to do with the present case". One of us is wrong, who? Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the scope of the present case? Venkat TL (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Venkat, I don't think the ARE cases should be discussed in User talk pages. But briefly the scope of the case is defined by the original filing. If you want to discuss more, please use the ARE talk page, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not erase again sourced material agreed by several editors

Hello, I'm Jasandia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Do not erase sourced content in Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

We have had this debate for over a week on the article Baker-Gorbachev Pact -on whether to erase the article or not. The article, just as all I have added, was well referenced with a primary source (a US declassified memorandum on Baker-Gorbachev conversations) and a secondary and reknown source (Der Spiegel). After a week, the majority of editors agreed to merge the content of that article to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany -I opposed but that was the decission. So, that's what I have just done. The sources were also discussed and considered valid.

You can find the discussion and the result in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baker-Gorbachev_Pact

So please, do not revert again my edition using false arguments, there are sources in all I have added. Tell me what is not sourced there after reading the memorandum. I'm tired of this biased war editing in Wikipedia. Jasandia (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (CET)

Your recent editing history at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasandia (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2022 (CET)

You have reverted this edit several times. If you do any more reverts during the next 24 hours, you are liable to be sanctioned. You are the first who started reverting without going to the talk page or seeking any consensus. You are also under warning-- I did an inclussion in the article and you reverted first, yet you are reporting me. That's rich. Jasandia (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2022 (CET)

I have done two reverts and you have done three. You reached your limit. But I won't revert again, as long as you cooperate and discuss in good faith. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I have done one edition, the original one (which is not a reversion): then you reverted (1), then I reverted (my 1), then you reverted (2), then I reverted (2), and here we are... Of course I want to cooperate. What I don't want is for you to erase the whole block. I erased one of my own editios which was actually interpreting on Gorbachev comments on 'not having discussed NATO expansion' and please feel free to touch or change whatever you feel. We can discuss in the talk page Jasandia (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you call it. Any deletion/modification of another editor's content is a "revert" as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

I don't know what "block" you are speaking about. Please limit your editing to the NATO expansion section. I haven't deleted any of it there and I won't. But if you mess with the Background section, unless it meets the Wikipedia requiremnts, it will be reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I ment the whole thing. Clock = all my content Jasandia (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added one more line using your very source, which was already there in your version of background: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

In spirit of good faith I'm telling you this in case you want to check. I have not erased anything. I think it adds to the paragraph and explains a little the line "famous "not one inch eastward" promise about NATO's eastward expansion was made during this conversation". Jasandia (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanjeev Sanyal § COI edit requests. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo fixes

I think this is some bug of VE; never got any edit-conflict. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there are so many people doing so many edits that we never know where it got lost! I am going to wait for things to cool down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Krish | Talk To Me 07:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)