User talk:Kautilya3

Ranjit Singh

there is no doubt in Ranjits Singh's ancestry Niether his clan claim Rajut ancestry.I personally know the royal family.Everybody know who Ranjit Singh was and he is never mentioned Sansi I can give reference but I will remove these claims 1000 times because the truth is the truth Ponia.sp (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The content you deleted is sourced to reliable scholarly sources. If you do not thing it should be present, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and see if there are any objections. I also note that your claim of "Sandhwalia gotra" does not have a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work on Article 370. GSwarnkar 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GSwarnkar. Nice to make your acquaintance. This will be a long road, though. This is just the beginning... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Certain issues

Hi Kautilya I was flicking through the Gilgit-Baltistan page and in the first few paragraphs it stated that International organisations and the United nations refer to Azad and Gilgit as Pakistan administered Kashmir but they also referred to Indian side as administered by India regardless of whether it is union territory now so do you think its necessary to mention this? I think it's a bit unfair if it's high lighted prominently on Gilgit-Baltistan but not Jammu and Kashmir page double standards if you ask me please reply with a suggestion. - 82.132.243.110 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I will look into it. But the problem arises from Pakistan itself. Pakistan's constitution doesn't say that Pakistan-administered parts of Kashmir are part of Pakistan. The Census of Pakistan doesn't list those areas as being part of Pakistan. Et cetra. Obviously, Wikipedia can't say what Pakistan doesn't say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying but my point was that the United Nations and other organisations both refer to Indian and Pakistani Kashmir as administered by them so why is Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan article the only one which states The UN line? its referred to as an autonomous territory mostly. I think removing the prominent message which is present on Both Azad and Gilgit article of Kashmir which states it as being administered and the UN stating its administered is fair otherwise by this logic it's only fair to have the same statement on Indian Administered Kashmir article. If you dont know which statement I'm talking about is it's the one directly below the introduction on Gilgit which mentions the UN statement which is missing on Indian administered Kashmir article I can link it if you want. Thanks I chose to speak to you as I read your contributions on the talk page and you seem neutral compared to the other nationalists who populate Wiki these days. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi this is the statement "the United Nations and other international organisations as "Pakistan administered Kashmir"

The same statement applies to Indian administered Kashmir so why is this statement only present on Gilgit and Azad Kashmir article it's a bit biased on my opinion. I wish to avoid edit wars and get people like you involved who are mature and balanced because it quickly degenerates into edit wars. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry the messages my last suggestion is calling them autonomous territory of Pakistan which is the official term used in Pakistan it's unfair to have Indias official name used for its portion of Kashmir while forcing biased terms onto Pakistans portion. Autonomous territory is what the official definition of the territory is in Pakistan. Please do look into this. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   [1] This articles first reference regards it as a autonomous territory of Pakistan from the Pakistani Beurea of Statistics it's only fair to have this as the way to describe it. 82.132.243.110 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I demand two way interaction ban with user who is disrupting my edits in bad faith?

Can you help me to demand two way interaction ban with user who is constantly reverting my edits, being hostile, nominating my page for deletion and pushes POV on me? I just want interaction ban on that user so that he can't do it further. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I the user in question is this one, I would suggest reporting to NinjaRobotPirate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

For topics under discretionary sanctions, my suggestion would be to file a complaint at WP:AE. For anything else, it would probably be best to file a complaint at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How

is it playing out over Kashmir related articles? ∯WBG^converse 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is an avalanche. What else? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to throw pages I'm uninvolved with under WP:GS/IPAK. Let me know if and when it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As expected ..... Watchlisting all the pages, though. ∯WBG^converse 14:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 it is not so much the editor conduct that is the problem, but the goofy Indian newspapers and the usual misinterpretations. We have an edit request roughly once an hour asking for something to be changed to "Union territory". But is likely to be over soon, because the Government is moving with top speed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• On a side-note, can you lead me to some reliable source that discusses about the old-rule of disallowing land-purchase by foreigners, in details? I checked some stuff on land-reforms but none offers an in-depth treatment. On a sidenote, the quality of media-reporting has been near-uniformly shabby from a multitude of perspectives. A Scroll piece that (supposedly) deals with my query, seems to have copied a Quora answer in toto.∯WBG^converse 14:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Article 35A of the Constitution of India#Background gives a summary as well as citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Noorani's 2011 book published by Oxford Univ Press is RS. Kautilya3: I will email you another. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read

After the discontinuation of Article 370 in the J&K region, Pakistan can no longer claim the region, Pakistan is already scared for PoK and hasn't yet announced a claim again on the J&K region. Also, It had been an integral part of India in the past which makes India it's parent country, has a parent country can and should claim over the disputed territory and the daughter country can no longer claim on the regions of the parent country.

That is an unsourced claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Article 370

Article 370 is not a Special provision to J&K but a temperory one. Vishalmenon (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC).

Then what is the purpose of undoing my edit? Vishalmenon

I must have misread it. Which page was it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Find it out.The sentence was confusing and contradictory.So corrected it. Vishalmenon

I don't think so. Here is the revert. Your edit was not what you claim it to be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ramachandra Guha

Why are you publicizing an ignorant person like Ramchandra Guha on this article? Dagana4 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ramachandra Guha, ignorant? On what basis do you decide that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_Reorganisation_Bill,_2019&oldid=prev&diff=909931790

Hello. Regarding the revert linked above - is it the content you disagree with or simply the sentence structure? In other words will you allow the content back in the article if I alter the sentence structure? --Edit-pi (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the sentence was too long and meandering. But also more substantively, the page is on the Bill. We can only summarise the circumstances of its enactment, but extensive details about the process need to go in the process page, which is notable in itself. Please see Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added this info to Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status as you may have noticed. However I do feel that this info is relevant to the Reorganisation Act article, given the scale and unprecedented nature of the restrictions and various other pre-emptive measures enforced prior to its enactmentment.--Edit-pi (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Ram Janmabhoomi

Hi , Regarding the the reverted edit Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Janmabhoomi&oldid=prev&diff=910072388 , Can you explain why did you revert the Citation required tag. Irfannaseefp (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, the article body has enough discussion of it. Leads summarise the body. So it may or may not be possible to give citations for them. If you have read the body and don't find the needed citations, please post a note on the article talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You are in the news!

Kautilya, an Indian Wikipedia editor, told Dawn by email! Hmmm, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems Dawn thinks Wikipedia only has one contributor from Pakistan. And they didn't get your username right, if indeed it was you. Do we consider Dawn to be reliable? - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That is an excellent question to ask about newspapers and weekly magazines from South Asia (and many other parts of our world). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Dawn is obviously a RS and typically more reliable, when contrasted with other sources from Pakistan. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can believe that but I'm not sure that being more reliable than something else actually makes it reliable on our terms, which at an extreme would imply that we would say nothing rather than use Dawn. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well, in my input I mainly bad-mouthed the newspapers, including Dawn. Obviously she didn't put that in. I told her specifically how The Hindu and New York Times ensured accuracy, while all other South Asian papers fell short. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Heh. I had a similar experience some years ago with The Times of India. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevant link: [2] NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Nitin. It is funny how all the newspapers seem to think Wikipedia is like another Twitter or Facebook, even though they plagiarise us quite regularly! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Occupation

In the case of Kashmir, the other 2 areas of the country that are truly administered are so out of an administration agreement which was followed by occupation. This area I changed was first occupied then forced to be administerrd, thus not truly administration in origin, but occupation in origin. The other arras, tho not happy w/either the foreign administration AND origin nevertheless agreed to the foreign administration. The area I changed did not agree, wish, nor desire both administration nor ocvupation from the beginning. Hence the change/edit to the page. Thx. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein (talk • contribs)

Adambein, your edit was reverted as per WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. You need to read that page fully to understand what that means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meghan Murphy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Murphy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Closed without action

Did you see this?[3] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. It was an impressive filing, with loads of work! I am surprised it didn't check out. I will keep watching. -- ¬¬¬¬

Hello there. Here's some vanilla ice cream!

Lakshmisreekanth (talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

You must be working hard about Jammu and Kashmir. Have some ice cream.

To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you Srikanth. Jammu and Kashmir indeed requires loads of work. Thanks for pitching in! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Elections in Jammu and Kashmir page

Why did you cancel my edits to the above page? Makes no sense. I had just added some info which everybody knows about. I added that PDP and BJP formed an alliance government in 2015. Check these links : https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-agenda-for-alliance-full-text-of-the-agreement-between-pdp-and-bjp-2065446 (about 2015) and (after Mufti's death, a new agreement) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30585105 . Only people who are extremely ignorant would be unaware of these simple facts. Why would you remove that info from wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.115 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the edit before yours that was the problem. Before you make an edit, please ensure that the article is in a clean state and revert any previous disruptive edits. Writing edit summaries is also necessary, so that we can tell the edits apart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sheila Rashid article and adding Army's allegations

Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I understand we all are working for an unbiased and informative Wikipedia where rather then promoting a particular agenda we provide the insight into the topic of article. The additions which I want to add were in line with same principle. You told me I am free to add the allegations made by army on Sheila Rashid and I added what I found. I even added the recent statement made by her concerning the allegations. Even after giving a long summary with clear meaning my edits got reverted only because the editor thinks I added soundbytes and contradictions ? How adding counter allegations made by an organization against which the original statements were made and adding recent statements made by the person contradictions? I hope you understand and give a proper explanation before reverting and assuming that I am going in for an edit war. AnadiDoD (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your "unbiased information" without a "particular agenda" wants to put all this bold face branding? The Army didn't make any allegations. It merely denied whatever she said. Apparently, they denied only two charges and left eight others unanswered [4].

From what I can see, this is going to be a yet another mud-on-the-face episode like it happened with Kanhaiya Kumar. Only this time, it will cause "irreparable injury to the reputation of India". So you better cool it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipediamust be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipediaand of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiatethe statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Avoid stating facts as opinions.Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Ngnrpu (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)