User talk:Ghatus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ghatus, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ghatus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

History of India

You mean that the sources are not provided? The Wiki-links do work. "Archaic" and "outdated" betrays a lack of understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a history addict and student of history, I will soon edit the table there and try to give some links written by Historians with modern research. The History of India must not be confused with history of Hinduism. Historians Richard Eaton, Romila Thapar and R.C Majumder have thrashed even the "archaic" concept of periodization on the basis of continuity of Indian History and the heterogeneous nature of India. BTW, I have kept the table but it requires urgent improvements which i will do with time. It is also incomplete without Marathas and Sikhs. All are taken from books written on religion and culture, not on historical research. Links are not working in the main template. Btw, I will try to fix them all. Regards and don't worry,Ghatus (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just completed the table by adding Marathas and Sikhs. Other works will be done gradually in my leisure time.Ghatus (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This table inserted is erroneous. We talked about it on my talk page. Sources are taken from those authors who are neither Historians nor experts on India History nor written on the periodization of Indian Histoy.All eminent Historians on Indian history like R. Thapar, R.C.Majumder, Eaton etcnever gave such periodization. Such pharses like “Ascetic reformism”, “Late-Classical Hinduism”, “Islamic rule and "Sects of Hinduism", “Modern Hinduism” as periods of Indian History are bogus. Show me one such example given by ANY historian on Indian history in ANY historical work/research/book as the name of those as historial periods. You are trying to pass some phrases of Hinduism as The History of India. NO historian has done such periodization of Indian History. It is totally a fanciful creation.

The other table is detailed. Hence it was entered. Name it what you want- south Asia or Indian Sub-Continent. It does not matter. But, do not replace it with a bogus one.Ghatus (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

1500 BC

Hi Ghatus, I didn't understand why you did this revert [1]. I think that sentence has been there for a while. It would be more productive if you open discussions on the talk page rather than reverting edits. My principle is, don't revert anything unless the edit was totally totally wrong. That is not the case here. Anyway, please look under "Sources" for the sources that have been cited. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Somanath

Hi Ghatus, would you have the expertise to cross check the recent edits to the Somanath page [2]? We will need to work on cleaning it up at some stage but, for the time being, let us at least make sure that it doesn't get any worse. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo of Bharatiya Janata Party

Hi, Could you please upload a Flag/logo for the Bharatiya Janata Party article. There was a logo but unfortunately it was delete due to license issue. Therefore, please upload valid license logo for BJP make sure its in SVG format and uploaded in commons section, so that it can be put in other languages as well. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk!

Hi Ghatus, can you please do discussions on the talk pages instead of the edit summaries? It is so much more civilized that way! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

History of India

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Vedic_period_.281750_BCE_-_500_BCE.29 and on the left, there are two templates, that's why you don't have to insert maps outside the template when they are already inserted inside. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan , do have a look at History of India page. It seems that there is a problem/resistance to depict/insert the Aryan Migration template in clear pictures.That's why @Bladesmulti is insisting to keep a floating template you inserted on 13th Jan only. Look into the matter and I have nothing more to see or do.But, I have seen such tendencies before also to Aryan migration theory.I can not revert anymore. It was better before 13th Jan. Thanks. Ghatus (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

V. K. Agnihotri

Hi Ghatus, is there a historian called V. K. Agnihotri? His book is being cited on a host of pages like this one [3], which look quite flakey to me. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks! Highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, we seem to be able to cooperate together diff. Glad to see so. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March - 2015

Most of what you had recovered back to the page,[4] it was removed by a user as it was copied from here. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, if there is copyright problem, change the language then. No need to delete the section.Ghatus (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As you ask, I will change it. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Khilji dynasty & Alauddin Khilji

This source does not appear to be reliable, not to mention you copy & pasted from it which is plagiarism. Also, the paragraph you plagiarized does not appear to be supported by The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji, by Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi. Therefore, since you have plagiarized this paragraph, I will be removing it. Please do not re-add said plagiarism or unreliable source, since this would be a violation of policy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

None can hide history. Proper sources are given. One can find in any book on alauddin Khilji the killing of "New Muslims". Even, page number is given in OUP book. Have changed the language totally. Oxford University Press is not an unreliable source.Ghatus (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for your statement, "none can hide history". If you have something to say, I would suggest you say it. My reversion was clearly endorsed by policy according to plagiarism. If you want to make this personal then I would be happy to have an Admin address your concerns. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LoL!!! Hahahahaha. Source was GIVEN.Ghatus (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

hahahaha, you plagiarized and tried to make it personal. Doesn't say much for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it was copyright violation or not, wiki is there to say. But, I won't tolerate any attempt to "hide history"-good or bad. One can easily change the language if one wishes. But, what is the need to delete the entire section??? I don't live on grass.Ghatus (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the definition of plagiarism? Are you unable to understand Wikipedia's policy on plagiarism? On unreliable sources? It is very clear you are here to promote a particular agenda. As long as you use reliable sources in a neutral manner without plagiarizing, I could care less who killed who, when or where. I have seen editors like you before, here to promote a particular agenda, and I have seen them all blocked or banned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No further need to make me understand your "innocent intents". I have understood them all. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL join in!

It's the mix of ingredients that gives the most extraordinary taste!

You're right! And point 4, "The impact of the "Aryans" [...] on the formation of a race or nation" is the most interesting point. The Kuru Kingdom is most relevant in this respect, since that's the place and the time when the "Vedic fold" was formed, which has enveloped most of India, it's culture, and it's societal organisation. These two sources were highly informative for me, on this topic:

• Witzel, Michael (1995), "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state" (PDF), EJVS vol. 1 no. 4 (1995)
• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Vivekananda International Foundation

Hi Ghatus, I hadn't noticed that you had removed my tags [5]. Please check now what the other sources say. You should note that the Sangh Parivar fans always want to create Wiki pages based on what the organisations say. They don't believe in third party sources. All such articles should be tagged just like I did. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Maratha's lost many engagements during 1680-1707, however you are removing the battles in which Maratha's lost against the Mughals, which demonstrates clear bias and is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You have been warned. Xtremedood (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, you are destroying the entire articles. Almost blanking the whole pages. Deleting all the references. Not improving at all. There is talk page. Discuss every point there. I am just undoing your blanking of Wiki pages.You have just joined Wikipedia. First learn how to edit. Ghatus (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimamsa and history

Hi Ghatus. I don't know if you've got access to scientific journals, but this article may be of interest to you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And maybe this one's interesting for you too (and also for Kautilya3). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan & @Kautilya3), As far as I know,"Mimamsa" is one of the six systems of Indian Philosophy. To quote a genius:

"The early beginnings of the Indian systems of philosophy take us back to the pre-Buddhist era. They develop gradually, the Brahminical systems side by side with the Buddhist, often criticizing each other, often borrowing from one another. Before the beginning of the Christian era, six Brahminical systems had taken shape and crystallized themselves, out of the welter of many such systems. Each one of them represents an independent approach, a separate argument, and yet they were not isolated from each other but rather parts of a larger plan. The six systems are known as: (1) Nyaya, (2) Vaishesika, (3) Samkhya, (4) Yoga, (5) Mimamsa, and (6) Vedanta...

...The next system (here Fifth) of philosophy is known as the Mimamsa. This is ritualistic and tends towards polytheism. Modern popular Hinduism as well as Hindu Law have been largely influenced by this system and its rules which lay down the dharma or the scheme of right living as conceived by it. It might be noted that the poly-theism of the Hindus is of a curious variety, for the devas, the shining ones or gods, for all their special powers are supposed to be of a lower order of creation than man. Both the Hindus and Buddhists believe that human birth is the highest stage that the Being has reached on the road to self-realization. Even the devas can only achieve this freedom and realization through human birth. This conception is evidently far removed from normal polytheism. Buddhists say that only man can attain the supreme consummation of Buddhahood...'"

Ghatus (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Medieaval Mimamsa seems to have been of (far) more importance than I ever knew; more important, in the early medieaval age, than (Advaita) Vedanta. And our understanding of Advaita Vedanta seems to be strongly influenced by modern discourses, on the importance of socalled "religious experience." Ah! The splendour of instant perfection! No need to work hard and try to control yourself! (said the old, grumpy man...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Truly speaking, I am yet to understand all the six systems of Indian philosophy. I am a naive in this matter of theology. I know a little bit on Advaita Vedanta, propagated by Vivekananda with a little bit moderation. I have hardly any idea about other five. They all sound Greek to me.:-) Ghatus (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderfull, how we keep on learning? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been searching again for articles on Advaita Vedanta; it appears that very little is known about the (social) history of this tradition. What I've gathered throughout the past few years, is that Shankara's ideas rose to rpominence in and after the 10th century, that is, when Muslim dominance started, and Indian scholars started to search for an "essence" of Indian religions. Advaita Vedanta scholars were prominent in this. In the 19th century, western scholars in their turn were influenced by these writings, seeing Advaita Vedanta as "the essence" of Indian thought. Vivekananda, himself a student of a Tantric teacher, elaborated on this theme, introducing the concept of "religious experience", which is alien to classic Advaita Vedanta, and presenting Advaita Vedanta as some sort of Yoga, that is, a meditation discipline. It isn't; Advaita Vedanta is about textual exegesis, analytical skills, and a high competence in Sanskrit language and culture. But it's this version which has conquered the world, "incoporating" Ramana Maharshi, a vernacular and highly eclectic Shaivist, and Nisargadatta Maharja, a vernacular Nath. My oh my. I think it's an impoverishment of Indian intellectual history... (this story is; Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta are okay). A fundamental lack of historical knowledge and insight. There's so much more to Indian thought than Advaita Vedanta, let alone the Vivekananda-version. And this does not only apply to "Hinduism", but also to Buddhism; the idea that you get a "spiritual awakening", and all of a sudden you're a perfect human being. Wauw. Great story, but far removed from the facts. Most believers don't seem to wonder what this enlightenment is, let alone what happens, or is to be done, there-after. Oh well, some thoughts, and frustrations, on the topic of India and historical consciousness. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the context is for this discussion. But I think Shankara was battling Buddhism, not Islam. Throughout his life, he debated Buddhist monks and supposedly "defeated" them. By the end of it, Hindus began to believe that Hinduism had all that Buddhism had, which probably contributed to the decline of Buddhism. As for advaita vs yoga, I see no opposition between them. One is theory and the other is practice. They are complementary. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan & @Kautilya3), Kautilya is right. Hinduism survived because of Adi Shankara. By 8th century, he destroyed Buddhism intellectually in India. Again, I am confused what JJ is trying to convey. It seems he is reading too much about Indian religions. Haha... As far as I know, Vivekananda spread "Yoga", not "tantra".:-)Ghatus (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For "destroying Buddhism," see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kumaarila/. And for Advaita practice, see N. Dalal (2009), Contemplative practice and textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta. My point is: India's intellectual history may be much more complex than we all realise, or are even able to know. "Historicity," being aware of historicity, is an aspect of this (lack of) awareness & knowledge. I'm bothering Gathus with this because of his interest in history; somehow he made me aware of the importance of being aware of historicity, and a possible lack of such a notion with some Indian editors. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Vivekananda is said to have spread Advaita, which is doubtfull. There seems to be much more about Advaita Vedanta than just some 'mystical insight'. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. Advaita is the simplest possible theory: tatvam-asi -- you are the Brahman. But most human beings are prone to ask stupid questions like, then why don't I feel like Brahman? All the theory is devoted to answering such questions. Happily, I learnt advaita before I knew enough to ask stupid questions. For me it is as plain as the day light! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" - Willem Kloos ppoem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's a very good question. Wasn't it Ramanuja who asked how you can pretend to be liberated in this earthly life, when the pain of life just continues? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Physicists also wonder how an electron can be a particle (a unitary thing) as well as a wave (spread out all over space). Neils Bohr said, don't ask such stupid questions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Advaita (non-dualist) interpretation of Vedanta was developed by Adi Shankara. Ramanuja spread Vishishtadvaita, another interpretation of Vedanta. There is also Dvaita (dualist) interpretation of Vedanta. These are all different interpretations of a same thing-VEDANTA.Ghatus (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thanks for the nice conversation. Plaeae have a cup of tea! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not until you hear this! If there are two electrons, they don't make two separate waves. They merge into a single wave. But if a photon comes and hits them (whatever that means), they separate out again. Only one electron absorbs the photon, never the two. Bohr and Heisenberg knew enough Vedanta to get comfortable with this craziness. We really expect Brahman to be simpler than the silly electron? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good interaction, I will have tea too. I am pursuing degree from two Universities in "Indian Philosophy" but wish to stay away from it on Wikipedia. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ARE formatting

Thank you for contributing there. But you really don't have to add separate headings like you did here. It also speaks about your knowledge of WP:ARE and how they are formatted. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Astha Bharati

Hi Ghatus, these guys say all our standard history is still colonial: [6]. What do you think? Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, The man is confused. It is true that Indians were thought the colonial narrative of history till 1950s & 1960s, but not now. We have corrected the National Narrative by 1990s and work is going on Regional Narratives/Histories. Read this piece of Thapar[7]. Indian historians are now reputed worldwide. BTW, there is no permanent interpretation of History. It changes with the passage of time as new researches emerge.Ghatus (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you say he is confused? (He is the chief editor of this journal, which seems a bit of a "reasoned Hindu voice" to me.) He says the Delhi Sultanate is given too much importance, which sounds similar to what you were saying earlier (and I was disagreeing). Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He is confused/ignorant because he was writing on contemporary writings when he does not know what is being written in contemporary historial works. The Delhi Sultanate is not given too much importance in contemporary historical works and it is considered as a power of North India only, not the whole of India. In modern historical researches, Vijayanagara , Rajputs and regional powers like Orissa, Bengal etc are given the much needed importance. It is we who give too much mind space to Delhi Sultanate as in our inner psychology we, the common people of India, think the beginning of the Delhi Sultanate to be the end of a "glorious" order and beginning of a new, not so "glorious", "foreign" order. Modern Indian historians never say so. It is perception, not reality or propagated by any modern historian. And, the person himself is a victim of such perception as he says "The period between 1030 to 1175 and that between 1175 and 1206 is termed as the First and the Second Holocaust respectively without justification." Who told him to believe in such rubbish? Which modern historian did write this? The man is suffering from either victim hood or inferiority complex. Ghatus (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

TW rollback

Thanks for your contributions. I would request you not to use WP:TW on good faith edits like you did here. Please also read "when to use rollback". Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arabs

Are you sure about this? [8] Most of our historian friends think the Arabs were preoccupied with the Byzantium and didn't have the resources to open another front in India. Trying reading the Jethmalani article that I cited yesterday. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arabs moved to every direction, why not to India? There must have been some resistance. Ghatus (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jethmalani explains why not. (And this coming from a BJP bigwig, you better believe it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jethmalani is lawyer, lol. He is a funny character. I do not trust him on matters of history. BTW, where is the article?Ghatus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but a Sindhi. He should know more about the Arabs than we do. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He says-"For a century after Bin Qasim's conquest, from Karachi to Multan, the Arabs were repeatedly repulsed by the local rulers, their most notable defeat being in the Battle of Rajasthan (738 AD) by a coalition of the Pratihara king Nagabhata, Jaysimha Varman of the Chalukya empire, and Bappa Rawal of the Mewar kingdom of Rajasthan. The Arabs in Sindh had taken a beating. Another attempt of invasion in the early 9th century was defeated by the Hindu coalition, after which Arab chroniclers record that Caliph Mahdi, "gave up the project of conquering any part of India".[9] LoL Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is old news. That is not the part that is interesting, but this: Umar, the second Rashid of the Rashidun Caliphate was opposed to attacking India, even when he was told that "Indian rivers are pearls, her mountains rubies, her trees perfumes," for he regarded India as a country of complete freedom of thought and belief where Muslims and others were free to practice their faith. My guess is that the Arab governors in Sindh were attacking the Rajputs either out of their own adventurism or because the Rajputs were fomenting rebellions in Sindh. The Gurjara-Pratiharas seem quite muscular but not particularly brainy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a fairy tale. History taught me that every imperial power, as rightly uttered by Akbar, has to go for conquest or they will be conquered. This part can not be true - "Umar, the second Rashid of the Rashidun Caliphate was opposed to attacking India, even when he was told that "Indian rivers are pearls, her mountains rubies, her trees perfumes," for he regarded India as a country of complete freedom of thought and belief where Muslims and others were free to practice their faith." It seems like a propaganda.Ghatus (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in the long run, but the first order of business is to eliminate the potential enemies on the borders. I can see why India wasn't an enemy and so not high on the priority list to the Caliph. He was busy with the Romans and the Turks (and the Chinese too apparently). In any case, I thought your theorisation was on the speculative side. Unless I see evidence that the Arabs had designs on India, I am not going to assume that they did. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What I said is just that - "Arabs moved to every direction, why not to India? There must have been some resistance. " Why did they spare India when they did not spare the Central Asia or Iran? There can not be fire without smoke. :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arabs definitely wanted to spread Islam, but their focus must have been on regions they perceived as being hostile to Islam. India wasn't one of those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Then, why to Iran (Zoroastrianism - much like Old Vedic Religion) and Central Asia(Buddhism)?Ghatus (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Andre Wink

He seems like a genius. See [10]. I am surprised we don't have more about him on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you been watching Battle of Rajasthan? I could use your help there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I will respond/reply after 20th May. My exam is on from 11th to 20th.:-)Ghatus (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow. All the best with the exams! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Ghatus, can I urge you to be nice to the newbies? We need good new editors who can battle the POV-pushers. We should mentor them to become productive. Blanket reverts like this [11] will either demoralise them or turn them into edit-warriors themselves. Please check the talk page, where I have had a discussion with the editor, and he self-reverted a lot of the changes he did. If there are still remaining problems with his edit, please explain them to him, either on the article talk page or his personal talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He gave no edit summaries for his two major edits. He also removed a quote without any explanation. Hence, I reverted his edits.

Well, he is a newbie. If he makes mistakes, we should tell him gently. Reverting an edit for which the newbie might have spent a lot of time is very demoralising. Try to make friends, not enemies! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have self-reverted it with modification.Ghatus (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen my responses in Mahmud of Ghazni talk page. The whole article is a communal propaganda and it needs to be re-written.Ghatus (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have responded to it as well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces page edit reverts

Hi, You have reverted my edits in Indian Armed Forces page and noted to discuss. I have tried to provide citations which are most authentic i.e Ministry of Home Affairs' Office Memorandum for CAPFs nomenclature, ICG history from their official website.. I am not sure how to discuss and where to discuss. I am new to wikipedia talks. Please direct/advise me to take to discuss page. I will be much grateful for your assistance. Thanks Hvvk89 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hvvk89: The protocol we follow is WP:BRD. Every article has an associated talk page, e.g., Talk:Indian Armed Forces. That is where you discuss. You can start by explaining the rationale for your edit. See WP:TALKPAGE for how to use talk pages and glance through WP:TALK for guidelines and policies. That might seem like a lot of reading. But you have chosen to get into contentious areas. So learning to "talk" is a must. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hvvk89:, You got your answer. Best wishes,Ghatus (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 & Ghatus Thanks. I will do it. Hvvk89 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[[12]]

Have a look to [[13]] The two users [Faizan,Mar4d] misused the rollback rights. They'd been making unnecessary reverts and pushing there POV on the article! I will request you to pls visit this article: [[14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.245.158.109 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Dear Ghatus! Please read this and add few points to the indo-Pak air war of 1965! This source also can helpful in correcting WP:FICTREF claims in other indo-Pak articles! Thanks 101.60.204.248 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

You are engaged in an edit war on page Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 within same contents since two days 1 2 3 and you do not want to discuss on talk page. Its clear violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. BTW per WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence per WP:BALANCE. 1965 War was not Indian Victory. Since many sources describe the war as Pakistan Victory, Indian Victory, Draw, Stalemate and Inconclusive so there is source contradict and are relatively equal in prominence. So I have to undo your revert per WP:BALANCE . HIAS (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus, refusing to discuss, as in here [15], won't go down well when an admin comes to look at it. So please do discuss. I have watch listed the page now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He indeed discusses his reverts only through further reverts. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that in war articles, 50/50 ratio should be used? Faizan (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus. I don't know what's going on, and I'm also not going to find out. But it sounds like it may be wise to take a couple of deep breaths, meanwhile counting to 100,000 or so, long enough to let at least a day go by. All the best, take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @Faizan: Sorry for the delay. I was busy in some works. So, here the point is whether a pic of Pak Army capturing a fort in R'stan should be inserted or not in addition to the existence of a similar kind of a photo already in the specific section.

• First, India-Pakistan land capture ratio in '65 war was 3:1 in favour of India. And, the final result was stalemate with India having the upper hand. This is more or less accepted by all. So, weightage of texts and images has to given accordingly keeping these basic facts and figures in mind.

• Secondly, WP:UNDUE says " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

• Further, WP:BALASPS says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." And, WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

• Before the insertion of the pic, (by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara) the weightage was 1:1 as far as the images were concerned in that "The War" section. But, with the insertion of the pic the weight has gone to 1:2 in favour of Pakistan. It violates both historical facts & reliable sources and WP:NPOV.

• Finally, Images are more powerful than texts. And, they are used many a times to create a false impression. Hence, the picture should be removed. By the way, Hitch Hicking Across Sahara inserted the pic abruptly and it was on him,(not on me) to get consensus. Ghatus (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Any idea how to change the armed forces components in Portal:Military of India It is semi-protected and only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Thanks Hvvk89 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistan war of 1965

Hi Ghatus, You reverted edits on Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 referring to the talk page. But the talk page has unanswered comments by Wikibaba. Can you answer them please? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok.Ghatus (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation tool

Hi Ghatus, you can bookmark this link [16] and use it for generating full citations from Google Books urls. It is a lot more professional than plain URL's. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

[­https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_India&curid=13890&diff=686651307&oldid=686650507 Vandalism?] Neh... Could be worse, much worse. Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, Much worse? Could you be clear?Ghatus (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Relax. Someone tried to improve the lead; you were not very enthusiatic about it. "Vandalism" is like ruining something, on purpose. When you use the term "vandalism" too easily, people won't take you serious anymore. That would be a pity, and isn't necessary. That's all! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Archives

Hi Ghatus. I've taken the liberty to add MiszaBot to your talkpage. The first archive will be created automatically tomorrow. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey !

Hey Ghatus, Can you please have a look to this "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ? Have a look to the recent POV Addition by one of the Pakistani editor "Wikibaba1977" ! "According to neutral assessments and the most recent estimates Pakistan held 1600 square miles of Indian territory ( 1300 of it in dessert ) while India holding 350 square miles of Pakistan territory but of greater strategic value in Lahore , Sialkot and Kashmir Sector[50][51][52][53]" ! Please check the reliability of the sources given..... MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And have a look to this too [17] "A Pakistan another bias and obvious fake claim ? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well. I'll look into it later. BTW, you can do it by yourself. Ghatus (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Diwali to you and all. Best wishes!! Ghatus (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Muslim conquests

Suppose Delhi had developed an Islamic community, which eventually grew powerful enough to take over the surrounding kingdoms. Then you would call it the "rise of Muslim powers." But that is not what happened. The Muslim rulers from the surrounding regions of India came to conquer. Should it be called a "Muslim conquest," i.e., was religion a factor? The answer is again yes, because the Turko-Persian literature of the time is full of Islamist ideology. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, Religion was the last thing they were concerned about. Modern historians call it "the Turkish conquest". All came as Turks or Mongols, but some of them (S.Lodi, Firoz Tughlaq, A'zeb) expanded their kingdom as Muslims. Ghatus (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In Delhi Sultanate, there was the concept of "Jahandari and Dindari". And, Mongols were ruled by "Turah" or " Yasa" or "Yusun" or "Yasaq" (the laws formulated by Chingiz after his ascendancy ).Ghatus (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, even if we leave the religion out of the picture (for the sake of argument), it was still a conquest. It wasn't simply "the rise of Muslim powers." - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed a "conquest" in 1206. But, it was not the only conquest to single out. More than a dozen of such conquests took place in the preceding 2000 years having profound impacts. Either mention them all or mention them not at all. Again, only 2 out of 7 Muslim dynasties that dominated North India came into being through conquest. Other five, which include dynasties like Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Suris etc, grabbed power by dint of Coups, not conquest. So, "Muslim rule or Muslim Powers" and "conquests" are not synonymous. Ghatus (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Punjab

You haven't noticed this insertion of Punjab [18], have you? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

One can include UP( as it was based around the middle gangetic plane), but not Punjab. Then, he has to include Bengal too.Ghatus (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

Please do not copy-paste content from books to here, even if it's to talk pages. It's a violation of our policies. —SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot it. Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

History of India

"Communal interpretation of history. Read "Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India" - By Satish Chandra"

1. By that logic, "Muslim Powers" is communal.
2. John Keay (India, A History) and RC Majumdar (History and culture of the Indian people) both regard the medieval period a tussle between Hindu and Muslim dynasties. Both are Neutral source.
3. Using Satish Chandra - known for his Marxist historiography - as a neutral source is similar to someone using P. N. Oak as a source. (140.239.232.12 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

This discussion should take place at the article's talk page. I am copying it there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

On Saturday/Sunday ( when Univ is not open) I will respond to the IP Nut (if the case is not already closed) who sees Indian medieval period as 2000 years and who can't see there were more Muslim Vs Muslim than Hindu vs Muslim in the 500 years period of Medieval India. It's about the continuity, not communal intervention. Do you have any Idea why Mughals call themselves officially The descendants of Timur, not Muslims or Mughals?Ghatus (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Asif Haroon

Regarding Capitals00's edit here. The source is unverifiable, via google books, and I found nothing about Arif Haroon after a quick search. My concern lies with the reliability of the source. Figured you might know something about the author or source. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:I know that Aurangzeb banned alcohol and gambling and I am sure of it. I think you can replace it with any other authentic source and it will not be a tough job to find a WP:RS in Google. Ghatus (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ghatus!

Happy New Year!

Ghatus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you. Happy New Year to you also.Ghatus (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there!

Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and the page will soon be reorganized. We would welcome your comments on the talk page, but would be grateful if you would hold off making major edits for now, as the reorganizing process will become harder and more confusing. Thanks for reducing the captions of the images! Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

PS I have now added and "underconstruction" sign on the Bose page. I hope you did not mind my reverting your edit. Perhaps it can be reintroduced in a paraphrase later. It is just that quote boxes put one POV (the one in the box) in the limelight, and, before long, to counter it, another quote box appears ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

All right. I will wait for some days. The quote is WP:RS. BTW, I was also going to put a counter PoV quote by Gandhi but you intervened.Ghatus (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A quote, for sure, is RS, as an illustration of some reliably sources critical opinion, but a quote box, or two, or three, ..., is problematic in controversial articles. (See WP:LONGQUOTE: "*As a matter of style, quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Such emphasis on one quote violates NPOV. All quotes should be treated the same. Instead of using a quote box to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote. The quote can simply be indented using a colon and enclosed in quotation marks.") Besides, Gandhi is not an expert on Indian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Ghatus, glad to see you back! We are debating the issues of slavery at Dasa and Religion and slavery. Hope to see your expertise help us there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I have started to take Ms Sarah Welch less seriously. She is doing Kolaveri Di in every article as if she owns them. Stop responding to her whims and fancies. Ghatus (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, we have to represent all view points fairly. You can get access to sources in University libraries in India, which will be useful for the purpose. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, Through my university library, I do have free access to JSTOR, Project MUSE etc, but I have found only a few helpful. Others are the result of "overheated imaginations". Books by eminent writers are the best. And, being a PG student, I know very well HOW and WHY these papers are written. We mostly write papers not to spread knowledge, but to improve our "academic score" for our career. :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is too cynical a view. Of course, all academics have a career to build. They are not doing public service. But, within that frame, they are also following their interests and the issues they might care about, perhaps not all of them but a good majority. When they don't do it out of interest, their work ends up being mediocre and gets ignored.

Coming back to the issue, JSTOR etc. are fine for us over here, but I don't have access to the physical books published in India. I thought you might. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An afterthought: I sense a bit of socialist dogma above, which claims that everybody does public service and only the crooks look after self-interest. The fact of the matter is that we all look after self-interest and we all do a bit of public service. Both are valuable. Take a scholar like Cynthia Talbot for example. She picked an area that was little studied before (the history of medieval Deccan) and made a phenomenal difference. Did she do it for "academic score" or just to improve things? Does it matter? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I myself is a born "anti"-socialist. I consider them animals of " The Animal Farm". But, my opinion was not on morality, but on quality, especially for most those papers are written by M.Phil/ PhD students/scholars (though they are my seniors but my interaction happens with them almost on daily basis in our department. Personally, I have seen their sincerity!!!) However, I am not talking about eminent Profs./researchers/writers. I am talking about those campus guys who crowd national/foreign journals with their "research papers".Ghatus (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Indian academic scene is not yet of a high standard. Most University departments don't do much research and everybody with a suitable degree can get a job. And there are all kinds of journals cropping up to cater to such people. But JSTOR etc. don't accept such riff-raff journals as far as I know. At least I haven't yet run into a bad paper on JSTOR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I can only say what I see. And, research varies from university to university. Take it sportingly, I doubt if you have enough experience on how a "Paper" is prepared for a journal. The borders of nations in publishing a "Paper" in a journal are insignificant today. There are three steps - registration process, fee process and publication process. Today, almost every student has to pay to publish in a journal- be it an Indian journal or a foreign journal, only eminent writers are excluded. And, finally JSTOR is not at all a journal. It's a digital library giving access to those journals I mentioned before. If you write a "Paper" with proper citations and there is some sense in it and you are ready to pay, I can make arrangements to publish your "Paper" in one of the world's reputed journals and subsequently you can "see" your paper in JSTOR. It is only the ISSN number that matters. Ghatus (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why I haven't run into such papers. I know the publishing racket ok, because I myself get "invitations" to publish or serve as an editor etc. But JSTOR is a non-profit group supported by contributions from member Universities. If it includes junk journals, we can complain and get them removed. So please use your hamsa niti here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:,This is not any racket,Kautilya. This is the norm. You have to pay to the journal OFFICIALLY (they will give you receipt also) to get your "Paper" published. No payment, no publication. What is the illegality here? All journals charge for publication. BTW, what is hamsa niti?Ghatus (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The allegorical hamsa drinks all the milk and leaves out the water. I don't know why we don't have a Wikipage on it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, This Article processing charge has now become a norm than exception. This was not the situation even a few years ago. Now, you think that a PH.D scholar has to publish about 20-25 articles within 5 years along with preparing his thesis paper (do not forget project works+pre submission readings+ public defense) and continuously attending seminars and doing presentations in workshops in order to be a Professor or to get a good job. And, then they complain why quality research is not being done??? That is why we all must follow hamsa niti...Ghatus (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are mentioned here [19], in regards to the dispute in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Dear, Ghatus. This is to inform you that, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been vandalised again by bunch of pakistani POV warriors. You are an experienced editor, so its my humble request to you, to revert edits by those POV pushers on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. thanks. 101.60.155.226 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look into it.Ghatus (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as the request should be made as an Arbitration Enforcement request.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus!

Please reply to the on-gooing dispute at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 14.98.84.194 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ‎, you may be blocked from editing. According to wikipedia policy a source is "NOT REQUIRED TO BE ONLINE" for it to be considered a"reliable" source. Please read WP:RS before blanking again FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

LoL!!! Ha..Ha.. You are doing WP:DE. Forget link, you failed to provide any verification or secondary source. None even can verify what you are claiming.Ghatus (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Feeatlast, WP:NEWSORGs are too weak for historical topics. Please try to find WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Big reverts

Hi Ghatus, please don't do big reverts like that. They are very demoralising to the editors and only help to inflame opinions. Three editors are currently under ARBIPA sanctions. You risk getting there too if you act in this way. Please feel free to open talk page discussions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning

Hi Ghatus, you might have noticed that MBlaze Lightning has gotten blocked for having socked. There is now an ongoing effort to revert all of his edits. Please look through these reverts and make sure that they are proper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes because to hell with the wikipedia policy of not allowing socks. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Meat puppet alert best to ignore. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3Ok. Don't worry. I am just thinking that despite this (A decision is needed) consensus, how could FreeatlastChitchat even think to revert in '65 war page's neutral assessment section?Ghatus (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to Wiki, boy. I am here for about two years. And, do not disturb me on my talk page.Bye.Ghatus (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please refrain from personal attacks. Refrain from personal attacks includes attacks in edit summaries and even on your own TP. So try to behave yourself please FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, And do not try to be over smart. Remain within your aukaat. Get lost from my talk page.Ghatus (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Ghatus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Editors are allowed to post warnings on others TalkPages. If you do not want a warning please be kind enough to stop the behavior leading to a warning. Your sentence "And do not try to be over smart. Remain within your aukaat. Get lost from my talk page." is very uncivil so please be kind enough to either strike that or just remove it, no need to apologize for it, just be kind enough to remove it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you continue your tantrum here anymore, you will be reported.Don't you have any shame! Ghatus (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus dude read what I wrote just below lol. It was edit conflicted or something and didnt go through. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Some peace

Hello. I tried posting this before but seems to be edit conflict or soemthing lol. Anyway here goes. We both seem to be going around in circles biting at each other over petty little things. So how about we do something about this bad faith eh? I see that you are interested in South Asia, and you can see that so am I so lets create an article together about the old history of the subcontinent, something without politics, about agriculture, some history article perhaps or even one about the environment. We can use my sandbox for this article, feel free to edit it as you wish. I will let you decide whichever article you want to pick and we can work on it before getting it into mainspace. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, You are welcome. I am a student of History. So, I can only contribute in the history section- be it economic history, military history, social history, religious history , political history or the new flavor of the age - subaltern history. I am post graduate student of History, probably will be doing research from the next year. If you create anything on history, feel free to share with me. I am sick looking at the amount of communal history believed by ignorant masses of our subcontinent whereas we had a composite culture of mutual exchange from time immemorial in our History of India. Ghatus (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the 1965 war

Hi Ghatus, it seems that you feel quite strongly about this issue [20]. However note that calling it a "fact" does not settle the matter. Different people might see different "facts" and Wikipedia is not an investigation agency or a court of law to determine whose facts are actually facts. RfC's are indeed the established mechanism on Wikipedia to determine the appropriate content. So "withdrawing from the RfC" isn't productive. Please calm down and get an understanding of how Wikipedia works. Pinging Joshua Jonathan and RegentsPark to offer further advice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that Ghatus withdraws form that RfC. India-Pakistan is a hellish topic, isn't it? So/but indeed: stay cool, calm down, have a break, etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghatus, there is no such thing as a fact on Wikipedia, only reliably sourced information, appropriately balanced. If there is a preponderance of reliable academic sources supporting a statement, then that should go in the text of the article along with the reasons stated in the sources and with opposing views presented, appropriately balanced. But it is your responsibility to make the case that the sources are reliable and that they are reasonably representative of scholarly consensus, and then to follow whatever dispute resolution mechanisms there are if you can't convince other editors. Facts are elusive and facts in the fog of war particularly so. --regentspark (comment) 12:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But at the same time, can numerical majority turn scholarly logical conclusions upside down? I mean - just by numerical majority without providing counter wp:rs? In that discussion, no one is providing any source. They are giving opinions only whereas I provided eight scholarly( all even non-Indian) sources. So I lost my temper. BTW, thank you all (Kautilya3,Joshua Jonathan, RegentsPark)for your valuable advices.Ghatus (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's where the DR process comes in - by providing a larger set of neutral eyes. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Hence, it proves the futility of RfC in this case.Ghatus (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If you don't make a good case in an RfC, you're going to find it harder when you go up the chain. Plus, you're sending two dangerous messages - that you know what the right answer is and that the 'other side' is unreasonable. In my experience, neither of those two assumptions are likely to be valid. The correct (balanced, reliably sourced) wording of contentious ideas in an article is usually somewhere along the spectrum of where you are and where the 'others' are. And most long term editors recognize this and are willing to work toward that wording. Disengaging sends the wrong set of messages. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Relax, relax, relax. Wikipedia has seen hundreds of battles like this one. So has the Indian subcontinent. I started this RfC in order to calm things down. If some people want to bet their life on it, let them. You don't need to do it as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kulbhushan Yadav. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Kulbhushan Yadav edits

Hi Ghatus, I don't know why you are wasting time on this. We can't do anything sensible until better facts are available. We have better things to do than fight over this. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But. that does not mean allowing Pak POV as NPOV. I can't play "neutral-neutral" game.Ghatus (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with this, but check out this edit, especially the word "liberated." There is more to life than fighting Pakistani militarists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What's point? King Manindra was a great Greek "King" converted to Buddhism. His conversations with Saint Nagsen is a very important historical text. BTW, are you referring to one Sardar Fateh Mohd Khan Karelv?Ghatus (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is to note a local Poonchi's view of their history as well as their view of what happened in 1947. I have seen several Poonchis say on the Internet that they never heard of anything called "Poonch uprising," which supposedly gave rise to the Azad Kashmir movement. Have any historians studied what actually happened in Poonch? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Discussion on Jammu Massacre is strictly forbidden in Univs by UGC/Govt. Something happened surely but the degree is unknown. Same is the case with Hyd massacre. All historians get more or less finalcial help from Govts/UGC, so none tried to unearth it fully.Ghatus (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That is awful. I am going to work on an article on the Jammu massacres. Hopefully, at least some information will come out that way.

However, it is a misconception that the `Poonch uprising' had something to do with the Jammu massacres. It started on 4 September 1947, whereas the Jammu massacres probably started around 20 October (even though there was disorganised communal violence earlier). See Timeline of the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3,all were interrelated upto the tribal invasion. All were "Actions-Reactions". Something was brewing for a long time, probably from 1932.Ghatus (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you are in danger of inverting reaction and action. That is why I worked on the timeline to get the sequence clear. For the significance of the 20 October date, see the M. S. Golwalkar page. There is a book to be written about these things. But nobody does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have gotten into trouble at WP:ANI as well as WP:AN3 for edit-warring at Kulbhushan Yadav. I can stick my neck out and support you, provided you promise to stay away from this page. You are valuable editor, and we need you, with a clean block record!-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. lolGhatus (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath, its a doctor recommended remedy for bouts of hysteria. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

" If we don't take an action against the violator now, he will surely violate it again thinking that Fortuna, Jeppiz or Kautilya are there at AN3 to defend and save him so why should he care for any policy." - Too much. LoL.Ghatus (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brahmagupta's Multan connection?

Hi Ghatus, your historical expertise would be useful here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Brahmagupta...Newton of India... Post Gupta era... Represents the Golden Age of India... Born possibly in Rajasthan... No confirmation. (If historians can not even say where Chanakya was actually born, how could they be certain about any Tom-Dick-Harry's birth palce?)Ghatus (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God!!!Such a heated debate on canvassing...Ha..ha..ha.Ghatus (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I will ping you hundred times from now. Pinging someone does not mean canvassing. :-)Ghatus (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like pining is a better way to call people than to request it on User talks. Will do so from now on.

I will copy your message to Talk:Brahmagupta and respond there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Internet world

I am sitting here listening to Radio XL and the Pakistani compere is taking requests from Hindu ladies, whose names he can't figure out ("Saudamini"), but nevertheless admiring their choice of songs. That is real world. I look at my screen and find this nationalist-fundamentalist bullshit. This is the Internet world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Volunteer Marek:. You can't do anything. My friend Drmies has always protected me in ANI. He will close the AE with no action. I can do whatever I want. ROFL. --فریاتلستچتچاٹ (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@فریاتلستچتچاٹ hello! and goodbye!(I have requested a hardblock so the guy who is manning you will lose another "safe location" :D) and ty for reminding me of @Drmies: I need to get my grovelling antics up to date. So chill, relax, enjoy your ban and feel free to use ur real IP and your real account when u have the intestinal fortitude to do so. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Tarek Fatah

Interesting guy [21]. I am looking forward to his book, apparently called "Jinnah's orphans." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It reminds me. Jinnah's biggest grouse that he didn't have the exclusive right to Muslims. "If you nominate any Muslims to the Cabinet, I want my Pakistan." The Congress did nominate Muslims and he had his Pakistan. That is how the Cabinet Mission Plan fell apart. Maybe Jinnah himself was an Intenet beast of his time, who had lost touch with the real word.

Sorry this Radio XL is messing with my head. I am losing the Internet realities! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hate is the weak's/coward's revenge for being humiliated/intimidated. (GB Shaw) Jinnah was thoroughly humiliated by the Congress and so he became a fanatic for Pakistan. The radical right/left is always under the impression of "imagined humiliation" and hence they hate so much. Hate always has a dagger in his hand and with this dagger he stabs none but himself.(Marlowe)Ghatus (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Congress humiliated Jinnah. Gandhi introduced religion into politics (in a spiritual way) and turned it into a mass movement. Jinnah didn't relate to it, so he became irrelevant and he quit. Then he was brought back by Muslim League which was asking for due share of power for "Muslims." I guess, at this point, he felt that his sidelining in Congress was a communal thing, so he felt justified in turning rabidly communal.

Fatah is not using the word "communal" but he is interpreting the phenomenon in his own way. That is a lot better. "Communalism" is not a word that I like and, in any case, it carries no meaning to the Westerners. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, no, Kautilya ,no. Jinnah was subjected to one of the ugliest personal scandals after he married a teenager Parsi whose father was a powerful Congress leader. Rumors and whisper campaign were spread by a section in congress.(ToI says it subtly).

And after 1937 elections, this happened - "“After the [1937] elections were over and the Congress had agreed to accept office, Jinnah told me, when we were by ourselves in the Bar Library of the Bombay High Court, that ‘we’ [the Congress and the Muslim League] should work together. I promised to convey his wishes to Sardar [Vallabhbhai Patel] and Gandhiji, which I did. I understood at the time that Jinnah had a similar discussion with Kher” (the Congress Premier of Bombay). Gandhi rebuffed Jinnah and directed him to meet, instead, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad. The Congress refused to accept Muslim Leaguers as members of its Ministries in the United Province and Bombay unless they left the League and joined the Congress, though they had fought the elections in a friendly spirit. On February 5, 1938, Jinnah bared his anguish to the Aligarh Muslim University Union. “At that time there was no pride in me and I used to beg from the Congress.” Muslims “were led by either the flunkeys of the British government or the coup followers of the Congress”(Why Jinnah became defiant)

Such humiliations made Jinnah a fanatic and radical.Ghatus (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, all this is news to me. I had read Stanley Wolpert's biography on Jinnah, and nothing of this kind has stuck in my mind. I will re-check. Note that the first article you cite above, reinforces what I said about Jinnah becoming irrelevant when Congress became a mass movement. M.J.Akbar wrote (before he became a Congress member) that Jinnah was slated to become the leader of Congress after the passing of Tilak and Gokhale, but then Gandhi entered the scene and everything changed. The Congress before Gandhi and the Congress after Gandhi are entirely different entities. The Muslim League was certainly no equal, just as the Hindu Mahasabha was no equal. The Congress, being a broad church, always allowed both Muslim League members and Mahasabha members to join the Congress but it didn't deal with them on an equal basis. Rightly so, in my opinion. Why should a national party treat a communal party as an equal?

I know that the 1936 UP Government formation is controversial, but a lot has been written in retrospect. In 1936, the thing that mattered to Nehru, whose decision it was, was that Congress was a "progressive" party and the League was a "conservative" party. So their ideologies and programmes did not match. Since Congress had the numbers of its own, there was no need for Congress to dilute itself by forming a coalition. One might say that Nehru didn't recognize the communal divide that was developing, but why would one expect Nehru to recognize a communal divide? He was one of the two "nationalist Muslims" of the country, according to Patel. Nehru had a lot of wilful blindnesses, and this was one of them. I didn't know that all this amounted to a humiliation of Jinnah! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

But aren't we getting sidetracked? Fatah is not talking about history. He is talking about the present. History comes into the picture only so far as it has shaped the present. We can't hide behind the history all the time to justify the present. Recognizing that history has gone wrong would be a first step to understanding what is wrong with the present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegation of Original Research

Please note Wikipedia's policies regarding original research:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." [22]

Can you prove I made a mathematical error on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor page? or that I've reached an irrational or illogical conclusion? Because such basic calculations do NOT appear to contradict Wikipedia's own stated standards regarding OR. Willard84 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Willard84, your OR is not WP:CALC. Investment commitments are conditional (CPEC has several conditions too). Same is the case with China's commitments as well as India's commitments. So, you can not compare one's initial value with another's end value. And secondly, you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS, i.e.,"combining materials from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Thirdly, economic impacts are nowhere measured by just adding initial investment values. Ghatus (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR

same OR here on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (Section- Comparison to Chabahar Port) added by Willard84. Do delete OR and irrelevant materials. Thanks, --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are some good articles.

* Raisingn the stakes with Chabahara, Editorial, The Hindu, 25 May 2016.

* Suhasini Haider, Chabahar and the Afghan roundabout, The Hindu, 25 May 2016.

* Srinath Raghavan, The takeaway from Tehran, The Hindu, 26 May 2016.

The editorial has a direct comparison that can be used along with moderated commentary. I also like Suhasini's phrasing "roundabout" as opposed to "encirclement." It looks really stupid if you look at the map, which you can find here:

• Ashok K. Behuria, M. Mahtab Alam Rizvi, India’s Renewed Interest in Chabahar: Need to Stay the Course, IDSA Issue Brief, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 13 May 2015.

The only thing I like about this deal is that India now looks less and less like a "Hindu power." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, we identify ourselves as "Hindus", a name originated in the Iranian land. Now, understand the irony. --Ghatus (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no. We are not going to go there, the Savarkar way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Kulbhushan Yadav

The article is POV from top to bottom, Pakistan POV has been presented as NPOV and the Indian government and Iranian president statements have been deleted on blatantly spurious grounds. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ArghyaIndian, yes, I know. I'am now busy with some works. BTW, I am also waiting for the right time and gathering all materials needed. The page is recently unlocked. There is no need to hurry. You can also join there. The article is in my watch list for a long time. There are some important developments going on in Iran and Pakistan failed to provide any "concrete" evidence till now. The more they add their PoV in the article, the easier it would be to deal with it in future before Admins. Ghatus (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. I agree with you. Pakistan don't have any concrete evidence, their ISI paid media is just fooling their peoples (awam). Anyway, NPOV version of the article needs to be restored. Here's one more source (Dawn) confirming that Pakistan has denied Indian demand of consular access to Yadav! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history

I invite you to join the Indian military history group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is India's secularism fake?

That is a funny question to ask, and I know that all of India's liberals will jump up and down and say I am wrong. But, come on, we know that Indian nationalism always had a large dose of Hindu nationalism in it, to the extent of having a borderline Hindu nationalist as a deputy PM, who let RSS off the hook and paved the way for RSS pracharaks to eventually become PMs themselves. RSS can participate in politics as long as they do so via Congress, according to him. They basically laughed it off. And, Indira Gandhi was essentially a Hindu nationalist by the end of her career, and PV was no better. I know that, domestically, India needs to be secular, and it can't survive without secularism. But it doesn't seem like India has a right to brandish secularism as an ideological weapon to the rest of the world or even to India's Muslims, especially Kashmir's Muslims, who actually have a better record of secularism than we do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This discourse on secularism is not on India alone, but on every "secular" country more or less. Democracy is a kind of majoritarianism, though a subtle one. In subaltern history (subaltern= minority/marginalized), Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak proved through her famous thesis that subalterns can neither speak nor have much influence in any system. ("Can the Subaltern Speak?") Same is the case with India whose people are highly religious in nature, yet very tolerant. So, India can not preach any one on secularism, nor can USA on equality, nor UK with its colonial past on human right, nor China on socialism and certainly nor the Kashmiri Muslims on religious harmony. @Kautilya3:. --Ghatus (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As on religion, I share my views with Philip Larkin as expressed in his poem "Church Going". Read this poem and you would understand why religion is needed in today's world. Religion and humanism is not contrary to one another, but complement to each other.

"For, though I've no idea What this accoutred
frowsty barn is worth, It pleases me to stand in silence here."-Larkin

---Ghatus (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

By "secularism," we don't mean irreligion. Rather, we mean religious neutrality in state and politics. But you already know that.

The fact that democracy can turn into majoritarianism is also quite obvious. That is why we have constitutions, laws and various checks and balances.

But when we let RSS pracharaks become prime ministers, it seems to me that we have reduced "secularism" to a buzzword with no substance. Political scientists call this "institutional decay." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ghatus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Train-the-Trainer 2017: Invitation to participate

Hello Ghatus,
It gives us great pleasure to inform that the Train-the-Trainer (TTT) 2017 programme organised by CIS-A2K is going to be held from 20-22 February 2017.

What is TTT?
Train the Trainer or TTT is a residential training program. The program attempts to groom leadership skills among the Indian Wikimedia community members. Earlier TTT have been conducted in 2013, 2015 and 2016.

Who should join?

• Any active Wikimedian contributing to any Indic language Wikimedia project is eligible to apply.
• An editor must have 500+ edits.
• Anyone who have already participated in an earlier iteration of TTT, can not apply.

Please see more about this program and apply to participate or encourage the deserving candidates from your community to do so: CIS-A2K/Events/Train the Trainer Program/2017

The last date of filling the form is 26 January. If you have any question, please leave your message here.
Regards. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Check articles

Could you check the edits of Ayonpradhan? They seem to be adding arbitrary links to certain articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I will try.Ghatus (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Babur is known for three main battles in India : Panipat (against the Lodis), Khanwa (against the Rajputs) and Ghaghra (against the Afghans). They were connected to one another in significance. Another less known battle took place in Chanderi.Ghatus (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion should there be a link to Battle of Chaldiran? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not needed. Mongols were by nature innovative as far as the cannon use in India is concerned.Ghatus (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian National Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Minister of Punjab. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history

You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services

You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert of my change to "List of countries by military expenditures"

Hi. You reverted my change to List of countries by military expenditures without providing a reason or leaving a comment in the relevant section of the talk page. Would you mind providing a reason here now? Pipping (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ghatus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)

Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)