User talk:Kautilya3

Onam

Just letting you know that your comment was moved to another location in this diff to change the context of the question instead of answering the very obvious question that you had asked. I have moved your comment back. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

and now NitinMlk's comment being refactored [1] DBigXrayᗙ 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Placards on CAA Protest

• Whole lot here (also FYI User:DiplomatTesterMan)--DBigXrayᗙ 12:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Media kitna gir gaya - indeed.

What is the pichle saal ki topi? A couple of banners mentioned it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

pichle (last) saal ki (year's) topi (cap/hat), they are saying, I cant even find my cap from last winter/year. how do you expect me to find papers older than 1971 ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow that is a good, creative and in your face set of placards. So many of the people holding the placards are smiling and look happy in the pictures; look empowered. "We have been there" held by the European hits you though. DTM (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

this tweet says that CAA has open the flood gates of creativity on social media.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do check out, the interview of Anurag Kashyap. He is a film director actively participating in protests. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The great Indian Three-card Monte--DBigXrayᗙ 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Baji Rao I article

Please help me to improve article Baji Rao I, as it has the capacity to become a Good Article, if useful information and content from different reference books are added to it. Mahusha (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mahusha, I will watch list it. But this is not a good time for working on historical articles because current affairs are taking up most of our energy. Note also that the Shivaji page went up for GA and failed it. The first step would be to work on that page and correct the problems that have been identified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

At least visit the page and what are the problems with that article list it & submit it to me I will see to it as I am working on Baji Rao I. Mahusha (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way are you working on Citizenship Amendment Act.... Mahusha (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

5 largest geopolitical risk

Surprised me. Things have changed. (ping, User:DiplomatTesterMan)--DBigXrayᗙ 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You have seen Shiv Shankar Menon, haven't you?

I always thought that the worst thing that can happen to the BJP is to get a majority in the Parliament. So everything he accomplished in his first term goes down the tube now.

It is not like Modi to back down. It won't go with his "tough guy" image. But who is going to tell him that backing down is actually tougher, and will show the world that he is his own boss? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Dear User:Kautilya, thank you so much for the kind wish on my talk page! I really appreciate it and am happy to be back! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, Anupam. I wonder if you can find me a good translation of Hum Dekhenge? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure! This one might be helpful. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but the subversive part is missing in this version. Discussed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the original recording of Iqbal Bano's Lahore concert [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hum Dekhenge

Jab arz-e-khuda ke Kabe se

Sab but uthwaye jayenge

The right wing says this is firing from the "shoulders of Hindus" [3]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, why should we care ? these are just stipd distractions being put up to derail the protests. DBigXrayᗙ 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Because they may have a point. Genuine idolators may indeed feel offended by any talk of iconoclasm, even when used metaphorically. I can't dismiss it that easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, this reminds me of Vande Mataram fracas. Anyway I consider it a timesink. DBigXrayᗙ 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

More than meets the eye

• 'Only a Pawn?' 'Bigger Conspiracy' After Arrest of Decorated J&K Cop Caught Ferrying Terrorists
• A Senior Journo --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The concerns as to NIA are way over-blown. That being said, hardly the strangest thing that has happened as to Kashmir; insider tales of the tumultuous 90s will put our best of fiction writers to shame. From a more Wikipedian perspective; does this man pass WP:GNG? ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric He was the DSP in Pulwama. A lot of questions were raised on how 40 Kg RDX could be arranged with all these cops and army there. Also the politicians raised questions that the NSA likely allowed this to happen, for reaping political rewards. I would believe that there may indeed be some truth in these allegations. Talking about the notability, a DSP is not the top post and hence not notable on its own, but he got a President Medal (I dont know how many get it) and now this case. May be GNG due to the case makes it notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be hard to imagine anything stranger than the Pulwama attack. Godhra pales in comparison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Especially since India already had intelligence of such an attack going to happen. That is why I said, NSA likely allowed it to happen. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally someone spoke it openly. DBigXrayᗙ 14:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Finally someone spoke it openly"....and the tweet is gone now. Hmm. DTM (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Here RAIOT republishes Arundhati Roy’s introduction to 13 December, A Reader: The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament (Delhi, Penguin India, 2006). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, She said 'Bring the terrorists to Delhi. Blast on Republic Day. Hundreds of deaths. Blamed and targeted the Muslims. Was this the script? '. Obviously no surprises that Bhakt brigade got it deleted. DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray and K3, oooops, I should never have asked :D opened a Pandora's box! (just kidding, thanks for the reading material) DTM (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Cute

Ring a Ring-of Roses
the Door to Secularism Closes
Hush-a-Hush
We all fall sown

References

"They are encouraged by the dividends the sharp communal polarisation prior to the 2019 Lok Sabha election fetched them." i can't recall why there was a communal polarisation. Can you remind me the events that caused it.? DBigXrayᗙ 22:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It was probably local to Bengal and probably generated by BJP itself by campaigning against the Bangladeshi immigrants. There is a page on 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal. But it doesn't say. This needs to be understood better. The BJP is very close to winning there. It could be the driving force for the whole CAA+NRC project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu BusinessLine said, had it been a bi-polar contest, the TMC would have lost. Mamata is trying to some clever balancing act now, but it is probably not going to work. If the BJP can convince all the Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants that they are going to get citizenship, Mamata will be finished. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Can you confirm the guess made by Kautilya3 on the causes of communal polarisation ? DBigXrayᗙ 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 - Kindly allow the other editors to reply to your queries on NPOV for this section and let the discussion finish before reverting edits

Hello, there. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 without proper discussion and without giving other editors time to reply to your questions. Talk page is discussing NPOV for this section - "Relationship with NRC".

You should wait for discussion on this issue to finish. You should give proper proposals for what changes you would like and wait for few days at least for other editors to give their responses. Since this article is highly debatable, it needs proper discussion by the Talk page editors.

Kmoksha (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please click on the Help:Reverting page you have cited above, read its first section, and do what it says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I will do as per that link. But why you did not let the discussion on the Talk page for NPOV for "Relationship with NRC" finish before removing and replacing your own content ? Why you did not give your full proposed changes to that section on the Talk page even when you ask everyone else to do that ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The talk discussion in the "Relationship with NRC" section has nothing to do with the content that I wrote. You are raising another red herring.

Once content has been written, you can essentially object on only three grounds. Either (a) the sources are no good, or (b) the content misrepresents the sources, or (c) it gives isolated views UNDUE prominence. Unless you are able to do any of these, you should not revert the edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Even while we were discussing NPOV on this section on the Article Talk page, you removed a whole paragraph. That paragraph violated which of your said "3 objections", that you had to remove it ? That paragraph is completely different from your new content.

Your newly inserted content violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I will give the details soon how. But my question is even after asking me to explain my revert on Talk page, without allowing me to answer, you re-reverted the edit. What is the hurry ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You go on and on making posts, but you are not reading or absorbing what we are telling you. Your first point, I have already answered on the article talk page.

You reverted my edit at 14:57. It is now 19:58. What is stopping you from explaining the revert in all these hours? The HELP page asked you to do so before you reverted. I shouldn't have had to ask you for an explanation. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As I told you, I will soon be telling in detail how your newly inserted content is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Other people may have other jobs to do as well. So, you should give some time to others to respond. If you do not wish to answer my question that why you asked me on the Talk page reason for my revert and did not wait for that discussion to finish before re-reverting my edit ? If you do not wish to answer that question, it is your wish. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted it because you did an unexplained revert as I said in my edit summary. If you have trouble reading edit summaries, that is not my problem. Now please get off my talk page and go do some real work, like providing an explanation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

While reverting the edit, I had specifically mentioned that discussion on this topic is ongoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If discussion on a topic is ongoing and that too policy discussion, the discussion should be finished on it first. So, there was an explanation, but it seems you were not satisfied by that explanation. Besides that, your newly edited content violated Wikipedia policies. I have given a detailed explained - here -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have already called the "ongoing discussion" that you refer to as a red herring. It was talking about content you want to see added, not the content I was adding. So you cannot cite that as a reason for reverting my content.

And I have noted that you have posted an explanation. Unfortunately, it is not any policy discussion. Rather it is your usual pushing of the government propaganda couched as an objection to legitimate content. Please be sure that I will be taking it to the admins since you are now being genuinely obstructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I would request you to talk more specifically about the article content rather than the editors. I had given a reason for reverting your edit. If you were not satisfied with that explanation and wanted a detailed explanation, you should have specified that. I have given a detailed explanation now, how your edit violated Wikipedia policies. I have only reverted the edit to previous content which was agreed upon previously by the editors. -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Filibustering by some users

User:RegentsPark and User:El C, as you may be aware there have been excessive WP:FILIBUSTERing on Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. I understand that this is a controversial article under AC DS and we all need to discuss disputes, but we have continuous display of "Not hearing" and Walls of text on the talk page there (also in the archives), and it is becoming a big time sink, when the editors could have been utilizing their precious volunteer time in actually editing the article. Any suggestions ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I was not aware. Can you provide a few examples? El_C 11:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

here is an example of filibustering about a FAQ document, released by the Indian govt, that failed to get attention from independent media houses and which is, according to some politicians, a part of govt's misinformation campaign to discredit CAA protests.

• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#No_mention_of_Release_Of_FAQ.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC) (I have now corrected a link that was placed by mistake --DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

That does seem excessive. But Kmoksha is a new user, so they might be unaware they are crossing the line toward WP:TE. At any rate, I've placed a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page, for now. El_C 12:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I had alerted them about DS a month back. Hope your note helps. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Replying here since I was pinged. El_C Please note that :Kautilya3 had accepted only recently that section "Indian Government Response" needs to be expanded using accepted good source links of the article. Please see - here Kautilya3 even thanked me for mentioning that link in that regards. And of the 4 links which DbigXray puts, only 2 were started by me. And the second thread was started by me since Kaulitya3 had insisted to put separately issues in different threads. And he also asked me to put concrete proposals from what the section says at present and what they are proposed. So, all these charges are baseless and all this is wasting other`s time and not discussing for the improvement of the article.

The real issue here is not of WP:FILIBUSTERing but of recent disagreement regarding edits done for a section by Kautilya3 for that article. The new content put violates Wikipedia policies. Please see - Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Latest_"Relationship_to_NRC"_edit_violates_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view_and_WP:SYNTHESIS

Regarding DBigXray`s assertions regarding alerting me, after he posted warning of "Original Research" on my talk page, I had gone to his talk page and asked him to be more specific and give some examples of what in my edit is "Original Research" and that which of my edits were not good. He did not even bother to reply !! DBigXray frequently posts vague allegations on other`s talk page in spite of frequently requesting not to do so. -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

In any case, Kmoksha, as I also note on your talk page, tending toward greater concision would be beneficial for all concerned. So I urge you to be mindful of and apply that. El_C 13:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@All, I have now added Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act thread link as Link #1 in my list of threads above as evidence for filibustering and walls of text. Apologies for any confusion, I may have caused. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response El_C . It would be really helpful if the allegations are more specific, giving what exactly I am doing wrong and example of expected behavior. I do try to improve. You can see that thread of proposal was created AFTER other editor asked me to so.

I would like to quote text of Filibuster link here to bring things into context - "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." Please note there has been consensus achieved that "Indian Government Response can be expanded using already accepted source links" after my efforts. I have already given the link of that in my previous comment. So, the charge of Filibustering on me is untrue and baseless. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)