User talk:Kautilya3

ITN recognition for 2020 China–India skirmishes

On 16 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 China–India skirmishes, 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. Indefensible (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PenulisHantu, what is the problem here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles 370 and Presidential order 2019.

Hello, don't disrupt my edits. You have been Continouly doing it. I have given the reason and reference link. Your claim of Article 370 being revoked through Presidential order 2019 is dubious. You have no source to back. There in "concurrence of jammu and Kashmir Govt" is dubious as there was no elected Govt in Kashmir. So please dont revert my changes without my permission. Otherwise your disruptive behavior will be complained to admins. Thanks! Kashwritesback (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kashwritesback, you need to discuss it on the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to CONSENSUS. At the moment you are WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has edit by everyone policy. i have given my reasons and source. There is no dispute. Your source has no claim of concurrence by Govt. So it goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Kashwritesback (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Hello, Kautilya, hope you are doing well. I'm writing this message as it concerns my recently reverted edits. I beleive that my edits, for the most part, are justified, via the rules of WP:INDICSCRIPT. However, as you reverted them, I am willing to discuss each one individually to see if you have a problem with any of them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsolanky (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think adding the Hindi script to any Ladakhi places is sensible. The traditional local language is Tibetan. They key question is whether you are adding theses scripts for any encyclopaedic value, or for nationalist branding. If it is the latter, I would oppose it irrespective of whether it satisfies the WP:INDICSCRIPT policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Here for example, you have hijacked an Arabic name and started branding it as a Sanskrit name. It is far worse than I have imagined. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am doing this to promote fair use of native scripts. It doesn't make sense for any page concerning Ladakh to have Urdu transcriptions, as less than 1% of the population of Ladakh speaks Urdu, as per the 2011 census. Hindi, on the other hand, is spoken by around 9% of the population and is one of the two official languages of Ladakh, the other being English. Second of all, Ammar is definitely a Sanskrit name, no question about it. However, as it is spelled with one 'm' rather than two, I'll create another page for it to avoid confusion. Bsolanky (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Epic, funny, SAD and revealing

These two videos from Newslaundry are sad in so many way (Newslaundry has done a fine job, the reporting of the other channels displayed is sad and confusing once you get past the humour of it) -v1 & v2 DTM (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: that fake Chinese casualty list was directly copied from the Wikipedia article List of generals of the People's Republic of China. source. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What of the Chinese government's "official" fake news about where the Line of Actual Control is? All these stupid shenanigans pale in comparison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That is rather amusing that it was copied from Wikipedia. And yes, fake news so big that it isn't counted as fake news, there was some Nazi concept for that I think. Indian anchors need to even start lying better and bigger. DTM (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a really good and revealing statement by Nyoma block development council (BDC) chairperson Urgain Chodon (BJP) - 12 DTM (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen her speak in the past. She is fiery, but too incoherent to be useful as a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Print journalists have made a video at Demchok. "Hundreds of nomads who used to graze their animals on both sides of the line of actual control are believed to have lost their grazing lands". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

International media

With Indo-Pakistani conflicts, Deutsche Welle used to come close to telling the truth while the British/American media pretended that they didn't know what was happening. With the Sino-Indian conflict the roles are curiously reversed. Now, the British/American media are coming close to the truth while Deutsche Welle pretends that it doesn't know.

Reuters [1]:

The two sides had been discussing ways to de-escalate but at some point, an Indian government source said, China’s People’s Liberation Army had turned on a group of Indian soldiers that included an officer.

Deutsche Welle [2]:

"During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent faceoff took place yesterday night with casualties," said an official statement reporting the first deadly confrontation between the two powers for decades.

Supposedly, Deutsche Welle's write-up is based on the same Reuters story! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle also has a Chinese edition where no such qualms are apparent. At the end of the press conference, a reporter supposedly asked Zhao Lijian what exactly happened. He said, among other things,

it was shocking that on the evening of June 15th, the Indian front-line border forces openly broke the consensus reached at the military-level meeting between the two sides. Once the situation in the Gallevan Valley has slowed down, it has once again crossed the field. The control line deliberately provoked, and even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who negotiated on the spot, which led to fierce physical conflict and caused casualties. The Indian army's risky actions have seriously undermined the stability of the border area, seriously threatened the lives of Chinese personnel, seriously violated the agreements reached by the two countries on the border issues, and seriously violated the basic norms of international relations. China has made solemn representations and strong protests to India in this regard.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, the Chinese Wikipedia relabels the "Declared Chinese border point" as "据称的中方边境据点" (Google translate: "Alleged Chinese border stronghold")! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Greetings Kautilya. I wanted to ask an experienced editor such as yourself whether you think this source is reliable for information on slavery in India. Is it Neutral? Biased? Apologetic? Factual or what. Forgive me for imposing like this but can you look into this if you have the time. [[3]]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.181.243 (talk • contribs)

Funny that you should ask. The thread that just got archived was also asking about Radha Kumud Mukherjee. I notice that he wrote the Introduction for this book. Mukherjee was a highly respected historian before independence. But after independence, new historical scholarship took over, which regarded Mukherjee's style of history, and indeed all of colonial-era history, as old-fashioned and contestable. This book is not written by him of course, but perhaps by a former student of his. The main point he highlights in the Introduction, viz., that slavery in India was mostly domestic servitude, at least after the Maurya Empire, is also made by R. S. Sharma in his Sudras in Ancient India.

So, yes, I would regard this book as a reliable source, but it must be used with caution as possibly belonging to old-world scholarship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Pangong Tso

Your recent editing history at Pangong Tso 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.
as you have already CONTINUOUSLunduly reverted the content repeatedly as well as submitted sanction requests for contributing editors without yourself writing and contributing positively to wikipedia. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.210.144.148 (talk • contribs)

Hey pal, please raise whatever issues you have at Talk:Pangong Tso. Continued harassment will get you blocked again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your page for a bit. Hope that's ok. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post 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. Erik-the-red (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)