User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 9

Active discussions
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 14


Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please get back to me on my talk page

Hello my brother, If you could, would you please get back to me on my talk page. I'd like to restore my edits, but not until we resolve the misunderstanding. Peace, Jahelistbro (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Willard84's sources are troublesome/fringe

@K3, See Talk:Kashyapa. You and I had concerns about the sources Willard84 used in Ranjit Singh a while ago, but the recent spate of editing by Willard84 across a number of articles, including the Kashyapa article, using a fringe source is ever more disconcerting. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I have indeed seen in many places that Multan was called Kashyapa-pura or Kashyapura. Here are some: [1], [2]. However, I don't know of any Hindu texts that say this. It was most likely a local tradition, possibly connected with the Multan's sun temple. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am more concerned over the fringe source used that claimed Arrian came with Alexander's army etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Mendhar Tehsil

Glancy Commission, a 75-member Legislative Assembly poonch is two member one of them Khan muhammad khan is the Poonch leader he was MLA 1934-1946 Khan Muhammad Khan he was given title of Khansahib on 11 June 1942 Awarded by Viceroy & Governor-General of India on behalf of the British Government, see to Book Yagana-e-Kashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardar Jay Khan (talkcontribs) 11:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sardar Jay Khan: the issue is not about the Poonch MLAs. But rather you are modifying the content attributed to sources, changing names, but leaving no edit summary or explanation. What is your difficulty in writing edit summaries, and explaining why the content is being changed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 20 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)

Please comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 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)


Hi, Please look up recent changes made to the article. Is Tirumalai Ramachandra is a better historian or Sanjay_Subrahmanyam ?? Have never heard of Thirumalai Ramachandra or his book "Hampi to Harappa". Sounds like a dubious source. Kindly check. Considering frequent changes, including removing references, in the article, request for semi-protection of the article. Please raise points of discussion, if any, in the talk page of the article. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Sorry. They did not belong to the "Naidu Social Group". That is factually wrong. Kindly check what the references state before the references got hijacked. Thanks. --Anon=us (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us
That is an edit from May 2016. I cannot possibly revert that, even if it were appropriate to revert it. Please feel free to fix whatever is wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Please check. Request semi-protection to prevent frequent vandalism of references.--Anon=us (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

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)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)



Please check if sources are ok and if content should be moved to other articles.

Due to paucity of information and several missing gaps, it is not possible to link the section of Gavaras which rose into Reddis (title) with the Reddy (caste) of today. There is an additional issue with the surnames, because surnames like "komatireddy" remain in use but they are part of the Reddy community today not of Gavara Komati. Similarly, the "reddy naidus" are divided today, either into the Reddy or the Kapu social groups; with none from the Gavara group (even though Grandhi surname is found in Gavara Komati community today). It is possible the gavaras who became reddi (title) rulers (in kondavidu), later served as feudatories or nayakas in the vijayanagar period, leading to the creation of the surname "reddy naidu" - though, again, there is no proof to say so. And so, the article remains incomplete.

Additionally, am moving your statement in Balija article to branches section (ie., In Tamil Nadu, the Balija merchants are called Kavarai (Gavara)) because all balijas in tamilnadu do not belong to the subcaste Gavara. Majority Gavaras in Tamilnadu are the Komatis. --Anon=us (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Looking forward to your reply on semi-protection for the article Madurai Nayak dynasty. The article has been vandalized far too many times by those claiming to be Kammas. However, some editors function more like 'ayyaas', driving divide to rule, stoop to conquer, with their pet object of hatred being from the community they have vandalized the most. I request semi-protection for balija and Madurai Nayak dynasty articles. It is a fair request, considering Kamma, Kapu, Reddy, Iyer, articles already have semi-protection. --Anon=us (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

@Anon=us: There's not enough disruption for the article to merit protection. --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Anon, it is not my decision. You have to request semi-protection at WP:RfPP. However, I can tell you that it is unlikely to be granted. Frequency of vandalism is an important factor in these decisions. If it is wasting too much time of good editors, then it gets protected. Otherwise, reverting vandalism is a fact of life at Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that NeilN already gave you the verdict! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems the vandals have to work harder then! For the record, here is a collection of them since Jan 2016 ---, Onel5969, Arpvr, Varun.kumar0104,, Vicky96, Kemlin_ul,, Madurai nayak vamsa. Perhaps the number of times they have vandalized has decreased since the past years.--Anon=us (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Hello, please see Sitush's talk page. Since you made the addition, request you to take a call. What you wrote is like saying all Bengali Kayasthas in Bihar are called Mathur (which obviously is not true).--Anon=us (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

your sources

on Balija - pending reply -- for you to take the call to revert to branches (subcastes) or delete from intro:

(1) Mukund says merchant communities like Kavarai are mentioned in inscriptions after fifteenth century. Then writes in brackets (Kavarai is the Tamil word for Balija). His should be considered Primary Source. He gives no reference for his claim.

(2) Francis says "The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions" - did he say Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara?

Many sources mention Gavara and Balijas as separate communities, including Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Yet, you both are insisting on something that is factually incorrect. Why?

Are you saying Balija subcastes like Gollas, Gajulus, Mahendravaram, Kambalar are ALL called Gavara in Tamilnadu? Sorry, you are wrong.

--Anon=us (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)--Anon=us

Copied to Talk:Balija. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Balija - I am mystified, too. I can see problems (the Gavara = Kavarai thing is not cited and seems to rely on local knowledge etc) but I don't understand what the specific issue may be. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Forget the above. I've said it on the article talk. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:: Please see:

--Anon=us (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Page Farooq Siddiqi

Dear Kautilya3, Please read attached references in which all details of Mr. Farooq Siddiqi is present, which i mentioned in his article. Please don't remove information from this article. Thanks NaqashKashmiri (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What "attached references"? You haven't cited any references. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment . Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I noticed that you asked for my comments. Unfortunately, I will be busy during the work day. I will try to respond late in the evening (GMT). It looks like the filer made a post roughly at the same time I was writing yesterday. So I missed his comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
no issue, I'll be waiting for 24 hrs. Please only use the DRN page for making any comments. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir etymology

Rather than deleting, why do you not reword? The content I added had many citations, including Swarajya article (which was not an op-ed). Madanmohan123 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Kautilya3, I don't want to get into an edit war with you, and thank you for warning me about the arbitrary sanctions, that was very useful. But you must be aware that the lead sourced to Yasmin Khan was there for a long time before the recent change without discussion and so I saw it right to change it back. The book is a reliable source as far as I can see, more detailed and accurate than a dictionary.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1947 Jammu massacres and 1947 Poonch Rebellion

Please review the recent edits on both the pages. You know the policies a lot better than I do. Thanks. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bal K. Gupta has been tagged as an unreliable source. Can't that be used as per WP:PRIMARY ? — TylerDurden10 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The book is published by, which is essentially self-publishing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is a propaganda war. That is how things work, in real life as well as on Wikipedia. What can I say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to bring sources. Until then we're helpless to do anything. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry. I have plenty of sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manassas, Virginia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manassas, Virginia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Please take a look at the recent edits to the page. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think they are ok. Some of it is WP:UNDUE and inserted into weird places. But I don't see any POV pushing off hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No POV pushing as such. I was just pointing you to the new POV added in the article about Gilgit. It says the people of the region were always pro Pakistan and the provisional government initially established there didn't have any people's support. I just wanted you to have a look at it, and know if you approve of that POV or differ with it. Cheers! — Vamsee614 (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Let us take this up at History of Gilgit-Baltistan, where there is scope for adding enough material and discuss it as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Check your mail once, when you find leisure. Thanks. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Chaulukya back to Solanki

Respected sir I want to you to change the article heading Chaulukya back to Solanki as very few people are familiar with the word Chaulukya and even Google results for Chaulukya describe 'did you mean Chalukya' it is an NRI who had edited the prestigious history of history converting Solanki to Chaulukya ; please read about this topic and see to new changes ; actually I'm a new user and I'm not familiar with wikipedia features but I know alot about history . Your thankful Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kunal, you have participated in the move discussion and were asked to produce reliable sources, which you never did. You can still do so and raise the issue again. But the discussion needs to take place at Talk:Chaulukya dynasty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Chabahar Port

Please explain yourself, how is a vague article considered a strong source on whether or not the Taliban is Pakistan backed? and how is that relevant in anyway to the Chahabar Port? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kash1ninja (talkcontribs) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What is "vague" about the article? It says The Pakistan-backed, anti-Shia Taliban too has traditionally identified Iran and India as two its biggest enemies. Seems crystal clear to me. The threat from Taliban brought India and Iran together and got them talking. That is how the Chabahar collaboration happened. As to how "Pakistan-backed" is relevant, note that the sentence has also said that India and Iran backed Northern Alliance. You are apparently not complaining about that, only about the mention of Pakistan. Why this selective interest in Pakistan? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Could Weckkrum be a sock? - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite obviously. One possibile master. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I may need to let them contribute some more before I can spot significant overlap. But Kumarrao certainly seems possible. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Dubious at Khan Muhammad Khan

@Sardar Jay Khan: You seem to have claimed that the subject was elected to the Praja Sabha in 1934. However, there were no elections to the Praja Sabha in the Poonch Jagir during that year, according to a reliable source. You have cited a source in a foreign language. Can you please quote the passage from the book that states this and provide an English translation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sardar Jay Khan: you have not yet answered this question. Please provide the source for your content. Please avoid treating Wikipedia as if it is a personal blog site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 dear sir that was book Urdu Yagana-e-Kashmir is not English translation is see the google book Freedom movement in Kashmir, 1931-1940 Ghulam Hassan Khan -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardar Jay Khan (talkcontribs)

Let us keep all the discussion on the article talk page. I will copy this response there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
A barnstar for you for your dedicated contributions. Regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much Titodutta. It means a lot coming from experienced editors like you! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po

Hi Kautilya3, I see you are spending a lot of time dealing with Launebee. Several of us already went through this months ago. Unfortunately, I think you are having your time wasted by him. Also, by having these sections debated again, you are letting him waste everyone's time who tries to deal with him. It's not really fair to treat these people and him equally. He is very far off what anyone else on this page is writing. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hi IP, there is no other way to treat people on Wikipedia, but equally. All points of disagreement need to be debated and consensus arrived at. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was editing while you edited and I did not see it. You can see it is an IP user, normally banned from editing this article until July. And I added things which are not discussed, so which don’t require consensus to edit, no? For the matters discussed, I don’t see how I am edit-warring since this user edited discussed matters, I only reversed it. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Please note that the "In the modern day," is not from me but from the user", like the removal of "only", I only let it like this because these changes seemed fair to me. --Launebee (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean this edit?
IPs are "normally banned" from editing anything. I don't know what gave you that impression.
We have agreed that "nowadays" should not be used, but you added it. You also added "fake education" allegation with incomplete citations. Only one of the citations mentions the "Sciences Pipo" phrase but doesn't say "fake education". I have already mentioned on the talk page that opinions should be attributed to the people giving the opinions, and that too only if the authors are notable individuals. I think this is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean by "normally banned from editing". It is not a ban, but it was a page protection. CambridgeBayWeather initially semi-protected the page then full-protected it for a shorter duration. At the moment, there are no protections. So the IPs can edit too. If the edit-warring continues, then I am sure he will protect it again. Since you have already received a 3RR warning, any further edit-warring by you will be taken quite seriously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Pipeau means "fake". Sciences Pipeau si a criticism for fake studies. For nowadays, I guess put it again was a mistake. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Letter in a scientific journal is often a short piece of research

Link to revert at Caste system in India

Published genetics data on castes cannot be ignored

Some editors here who appear to be of not of the scientific background are reverting edits that cite published scientific research in highly reputed journals, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Who gives them the authority to judge on the scientific merit of published and accepted science research?

In scientific journals, a letter is a shorter research article (Nature, for example) and/or reanalysis of published data in the same journal (PNAS, for example). It is not an "opinion" and unqualified editors should refrain from making such defamatory statements here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talkcontribs) 03:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mkv22, welcome to Wikipedia. Decisions like this are made based on Wikipedia policies. You have received a welcome message from Joshua Jonathan more than a month ago, which contains links to Wikipedia policies. The "Five pillars" articles are the starting point. For this discussion, you need to focus on WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. Once you have an argument based on policies, please state it at the article's talk page: Talk:Caste system in India, not here. You should also avoid casting aspersions on the qualifications on other editors (like the remarks I have struck off above). Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the "formal" results have been of previous discussions on caste & genetic research, but as far as I know there is strong concencus to be very carefull with such data in this regard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengalis article

Hi Kautilya3, @Ms Sarah Welch:, Will you please develop Bengalis article, this particular article is highly under developed and requires major editing. Please do something. I've already nominated this article for WP:GOCE. Religion, Culture, Bengali cuisine, Festivals these sections are all under developed. Very few sources have been provided. I don't know whether such article shall get GA nomination. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anandmoorti: Consider de-nominating the Bengalis article from GOCE if it indeed is in bad shape (unsourced, non-RS/blogs/poor quality sources, etc). Typically, near-GA quality/B/B+ quality articles should be nominated for a review and clean up by the GOCE team, to better deploy their talents. On Talk:Bengalis, you may wish to leave a summary of the issues that make it "highly under developed". That way, the page watchers and volunteers can discuss your concerns and collaborate to improve it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:, Aliright I have de-nominated the Bengalis article from GOCE and left a message in the talk page of the Bengalis article. Thanks.--Anandmoorti (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: I am sorry to see that the page is underdeveloped. However, I am not well-qualified to work on this page. See Talk:Bengalis/Archive_3 for people that might be able to contribute as well as for some ideas on what should be covered. The amount of talent Bengalis have produced is mind-boggling. There is no reason why a good page can't be constructed outlining all their achievements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't negate negationism

Meenakshi Jain's work Rama & Ayodhya is not about "Hindu Revivalism" rather its about Negationism of marxist historians about the existence of Ram temple at Babri Maszid site in ayodhya. By categorizing it as "hindu revivalism" you are playing to the gallery and attaching the bad connotations of "revivalism" to the Ayodhya movement & to a very well researched work on the subject thereby putting off people from considering the work with an open mind.

Therefore I urge you to reconsider your edits.

Rsplenum (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please study the "five pillars" articles I posted in my welcome message. Wikipedia is not a forum to air your views. It is written by summarising reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist suggestion

Please add this page to your Watchlist. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Kautilya. Where did Gilgit-Baltistan get a 1RR restriction? Just wondering re the AE complaint against Mar4d. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know really. I had assumed that El_C had put it on. It doesn't seem to be an arbitration-related restriction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Will check with them. Also, do we still need the Kashmir conflict restrictions I'd placed last year? I'd like to take them off - what do you think? --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think they are needed. The current blow-up at the Rape in Kashmir conflict page is an example. Also, more POV-pushers will show up in the summer holidays. The editors that are currently active at the Kashmir conflict pages are reasonable ones. But that is only because we have hounded out the others with the edit restrictions. If the restrictions are lifted, they are likely to come back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I guess we'll leave them on for now then. --regentspark (comment) 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Obvious content forks

Have a look at these blatant non-WP:NOTEable articles:

Already covered here. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke

Did you notice that he's topic banned from Indian history. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug, no I didn't know that. But there is nothing in the ARBIPA enforcement log, and there were no DS alerts in his talk page history. I gave the notice because of his POV edits at Bajrang Dal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yogesh and POV are practically synonyms. I think his indefinite ban preceded the ArbCom situation and was community imposed. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's the link.[3] Doug Weller talk 05:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of the community ban, but the fact is that YK has been skirting the edge of that ban for ages. Part of the problem is that the scope of the ban is poorly defined. Where is the line between history and contemporary politics? YK has used this ambiguity to pop up around several topics related to Hindutva and make questionable edits several times, and there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: WP:HISTRS says, When historians first begin to write about an event, then it should be regarded as a historical article. Everything covered in India after Gandhi is "history" by this criterion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough; IIRC India After Gandhi mentions events up to 2004 or so (haven't read the book in a while). By this yardstick, YK has been in constant violation of his ban. The Bajrang Dal was founded in the early 80s, and its best known activities were during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the 2002 Gujarat riots; so the Bajrang Dal article itself would certainly come within the scope of the topic ban (unless he were editing it with respect to a specific recent incident, which he was not). Vanamonde (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. I will write a note to him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Uri, Bagh and Nowshera. 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) 10:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Need your help...

Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Burhan Wani

I don't wish to engage in a revert war. What is "RS"? Also, wouldn't a commander of a U.N. declared terror outfit be a terrorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talkcontribs) 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RS is short for reliable source. "Terrorist" is a value-laden label. It should be used only if it is wisely used by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
"Wisely" used? Perhaps you meant "widely"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talkcontribs) 19:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Good work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My thanks also. Especially this evidence. Very well organized, and no doubt, time-consuming to prepare. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was surprise at the speed with which this got resolved, and, shocked as well, having supported Towns Hill so often.
EdJohnston, I am wondering who is going to look into the meatpuppetry of Owais Khursheed. The CU didn't address that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: closed the ANI of Owais Khursheed. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's a lot of accounts that I had encountered at various points...good work, K. I wish I could say that running a "pro-Pakistani" editor to earth would improve your credibility with their opposite numbers, but that might be wishful thinking...Vanamonde (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po

I think your name appeared in some of the discussions about this. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo in case you want to propose how to resolve this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  Hi Kautilya, beer for your great work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan. You are as smart as ancient Kautilya. Hope you stay forever on Wikipedia to keep it clean. Cheers-- Human3015 TALK  22:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Humanist. Glad to hear from you. Are you planning to become active any time soon? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia has always been a great experience for me. I always wanted to create articles on vast subjects and nominate them for DYKs. Though I may not stay as active as earlier but I will still contribute in my favourite areas as much as possible. I may not get involve much in India-Pakistan or Kashmir related articles, now I just want to be a peaceful editor and want to stay away from those edit warrings, content disputes etc for peace of life. I will rather focus on Tourism, Food & Drink, Geography, Literature & Culture etc related articles. India-Pakistan related articles will be my last focus.--Human3015 TALK  17:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Kindly help

Hello. Greetings. Kindly help me as I am being threatened by a user named Sitush on this website. The user has everyone convinced that I am in the wrong and unfairly trying to block me with the help of other Wikipedians. All I wanted is to provide some neutral information on Reservation in India page and this trouble started. First Sitush started removing my edits by mentioning this and that. And then later started thretening me for my edits. In the end I have received warning from another Wikipedian that I might be completely banned. This is not fair or impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what help you need, and why you are asking me. Your edit is like an essay or a blog post. It is not possible to include it on Wikipedia. Please read the "five pillars" articles posted in your welcome message, and get an idea how Wikipedia works. Until you get a good understanding of how it works, you should not be making accusations about editors. Please be very careful because you have received a warning from an administrator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I used my other account 2 to 3 years back I don't even remember the username so please tell me how can I disable my other account ShakespeareOfAsia (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you remember the articles you edited and the rough time period, you can look at the edit histories of those articles. If you made really insiginifant edits that are not worth remembering, then you can forget it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am so impressive

with your kautilya explanation 

(Arjun3456 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Jesus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan article

User:Kautilya3 .....I am putting back just a couple of lines sourced to Dawn (newspaper) which is certainly a reliable source recognized by Wikipedia. I request that you please leave that alone. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is fine. Please don't quote text from sources. Instead, describe them in your own words. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winnipeg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winnipeg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

K. Elst

Hello, The funny thing about all these polemics on "non aryan invasion theory" is that all these people have veneration for Savarkar who was initiated by Tilak. But Tilak wrote "The Artic home in the Vedas" !!!!!

I'm surprised of the audience that a guy like K. Elst may have had on certain layers of Indian society. He knows nothing about Hinduism. He's just a hate-mongering neoconservative who wants to spread hate among Indians. Pityful.


Xinheart (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't know much about his Flemish politics. But, as far as India is concerned, writing for Hindu nationalists is essentially his job, his livelihood. So he is locked into it.
And, about aryan invasion stuff, he didn't write that much about it actually. And, what he wrote is purely hypothetical. It is not all that bad. But all the Hindu nationalists think he "proved" that Aryans originated in India. Joshua Jonathan wrote our article on Indigenous Aryans. We were all quite surprised about how he little he actually wrote about it, and what a big deal has been made out of it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Elst gave a hypothetical outline of a possible "Out of India" theory. He didn't even say that it was correct; he just said 'this is the picture that emerges from OoI-theorists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po edit warring again?

I'm sorry to come back to you on this one, but I fear that another edit war could start on the Sciences Po article (diff), so that we may need some more mediation to ensure that the energy is channeled towards constructive discussions on talk. I've tried to move in this direction, but I'm obviously not in a position to moderate if things go wrong again. Thank you for your help so far in any case! SalimJah (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@SalimJah: the page continues to be on my watch list. Please feel free to ping me from the talk page any time you want my outside opinion. I am going to be quite busy till the end of the week. So I may not be able to get involved a lot, but I can certainly guide the discussion a bit. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by EddieDrood

Hi Kautilya. I reverted confirmed ip sock of banned EddieDrood's edits on Indo-European languages per WP:Evasion and WP:LEAD. Such detailed information is not appropriate per WP:LEAD policy and the anon is a confirmed sockpuppeter. The SAME ip editor vandalized the same page before[4] and made questionable changes on another article [5]. On the other hand, all the proto languages are "reconstructed" but this user duplicates this info everywhere to push a pov. It is very hard to WP:AG. (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, what you just did here is called WP:Canvassing and it is frowned upon. If you want to call somebody's attention to some edit, you should only ask them to look at it. They can make up their own mind. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I didnt know that. (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


Done: Talk:Arabic numerals#Hindu numerals.3F. Please comment there -- HAAAHEEE (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sweet shop

After Indian astrologers, Indian kids, now Indian sweet shops also like Wikipedia User talk:Abhishek Bikaner Mishthan Bhandar. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle for Caen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle for Caen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

NWFP (1901-1955)

Hi. Please see article talk page: your concerns are very well-founded! Protozoon (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add...

... Cattle slaughter in India to your watchlist. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[6] - Check this, if you haven't. Some guy misunderstood your request to use WP:SECONDARY sources. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, I think, those massacres even deserve a separate article, given the scale. "Very conservative estimate" (report itself says so) tells 27,000-40,000 lost lives during and after the police action. Some observers even give figures upto 200,000! What do you say? — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
See [7]. I don't yet know enough to create an article of this kind. The whole Operation Polo coverage here is rather poor. The best information I could come up with is in Standstill agreement (India), which gives a completely different picture from that of the Annexation of Hyderabad page. Once again, as in the Poonch Rebellion/Jammu massacres, there is a lot of POV pushing from all sides, and the truth has been burried. The truth, it seems, is that the India's operation was indeed a "police operation". But it has been regarded as an invasion by both the Indians as well as the Nizam's people, and the Nizam government collapsed. The chaos lasted three days, during which the massacres happened. Then India imposed military government and order was restored slowly. But not everybody agrees. So, it will be hard work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add to your watchlist: List of massacres in India. — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Other accounts

Which ones are you referring to? Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but it's certainly possible. In that case, though, they should be reported to the SPI that I opened. Vanamonde (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
(tps) [8] [9] [10] - Van, he's most probably a sock. So many similarities: "bully, WP:BULLY"; "reverting others contributions and hard work"; "Respect indian court & law"; "open source Wikipedia"... That's so much circumstantial evidence. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
[11] - And here is one more latest similarity: "monopoly"... — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tyler Durden: I think you may have a better grasp of the similarity than I do: would you like to add a report to the SPI page? The instructions are in a box at the top of the page at WP:SPI; the old case name was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epistemphilic7. Vanamonde (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Van, let me wait. I want an answer from him. After that, I'll do it. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tyler Durden: You've had your reply; this is going nowhere rather quickly. I'd report them sooner than later, because if it turns out not to be a sock, then we'll probably have to go through the WP:CESSPOOL, and that will take time, which means more disruption. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Van, I felt lazy to write the report. I'll do it within a day as you're insisting. But I don't see the use in reporting. Even if he gets blocked, he will seemingly return with another account shortly, and the next time more carefully. Am I wrong? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: re: being lazy: perfectly understandable. re: not being any use; that's not necessarily true. We certainly have our share of LTA cases; people who just keep returning and keeping on getting blocked. However, this person is not simply here to disrupt; they seem to have an agenda as well. For editors who want to push an agenda, being found out is a problem, because with each sock more people are alerted to what they are doing, and eventually their "work" becomes impossible: witness the IAC sockfarm (before your time), which seems to have more or less died out. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Well, you know why. Without you and your mentor-ship, I wouldn't have stayed in Wikipedia. You have shown exceptional help, guidance and optimism towards me when I started editing here, while educating me about the ways of Wiki. Now don't laugh! :-) --- Tyler Durden (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Tyler Durden! It has been my pleasure to help you find the ways of Wiki. But you have been an exceptional learner, not to mention the fact that your heart is in the right place. Long live the Tyler Durdens of Wikipedia! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


User:Kautilya3/sandbox/History of the RSS - Hey K, what is this doing there since 2014? Our original Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article is in a pitiful state, mainly the 'Founding' part of 'History' section itself, which suffers from serious lack of attention. Let us please start working on this in the coming days, by moving content from your sandbox a bit by bit, while improving it. I'll give my best. This is an article of great significance! Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hah, good question. If I can spare any time at all, I would be happy to lend a hand. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tyler Durden: I started this draft to document the history because there was too much focus on the history in the main article, but not enough on what RSS is. However, I then got side tracked into other things. I don't think I will get back into it until the Kashmir conflict article is finished. Please feel free to take whatever you like to the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape during the Kashmir conflict

Please read the references provided by biased editors. Purposely some of the Pakistani wikipedians are using non-genuine references to author those articles. Please look forward to all articles and don't support vandalism. This is not I'm being right winged or inducing my thoughts. Just check the profile of the users who published those edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxxorsid (talkcontribs) 20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to check any profiles. You need to have policy-based reasons for removing sourced content. If you keep doing it repeatedly, you are liable to be sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


I've responded to your request by adding some sources to the talk page of the article.

It's important to assume good faith when editing to avoid misunderstandings before accusing another user of edit warring.

--RaviC (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good faith requires that you follow WP:BRD when an edit is reverted, and the issue is substantial enough to warrant discussion. Reinstating a disputed edit serves no purpose whatsoever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Commented on wrong section

@Kautilya3: Talk:Kovur, Nellore district, you commented on wrong section. Comment on References section.--Vin09(talk) 08:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I know. The first citation in the lead didn't work ("404 not found"). So I don't know what is going on. But I am sure you will be able to sort it out. I was just trying to calm the other editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahimsa, limited violence, and animal rights / human rights / protection movements

Kautilya3: I support the deletion of POV-fork just created.

The ahimsa doctrine, in most of their text (particularly of Hindus), does not mean "never ever any violence". The Hindu texts have elaborate just war theories, even some Jain texts developed some "himsa as a path to ahimsa" ideas after 11th-century. The kind of questions they ask is, "if an attack will lead to the rape of a nun, and violence is necessary to prevent that from happening, must one suspend ahimsa, if so why and how much"; or "if a practice or ideology causes animal cruelty and sacrifices, or leads to mass violence against innocent humans, etc, is non-violence appropriate? is limited violence appropriate? etc"

There is nothing inconsistent about "ahimsa and vigilantism" in such and related circumstances, according to these texts. The implications of ahimsa as an ethical value, in relative or absolute form, has been one of the key ideological difference discernable in early Hindu and Jain texts. I do not wish to use an article talk page for a FORUM-y discussion on all this per WP:TPNO. If you are interested, I can try to email you something when I find time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, indeed, people that subscribe to ahimsa would need to figure out when to make compromises, and the just war (dharma yuddha) could very well be an acceptable compromise. Whether the just war idea itself is part of the ahimsa doctrine is debatable.
Coming to dharma, it is never meant to be one man's belief. Traditionally, dharma was decided in debates in kings' courts. In the modern days, the legislatures serve the same purpose. So nothing done outside the legilsated law can be called dharma, especially if it involves violence against other men. And, we should not be speaking of "war" at all for incidents happening inside a country that has a well-functioning government. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That is indeed one way to look at ahimsa and dharma. There are many more perspectives, and a lot of discussion / bhasya in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts. My primary message above was that ahimsa theories =/= never ever any violence =/= absolute non-violence irrespective of circumstances. Ancient and medieval ahimsa theories have variously incorporated just war, limited violence, vigilantism, protests, embargo, isolation through sanctions, etc. Texts state that a limited violence that helps prevent or ends large scale violence is more closer to ahimsa precept than doing nothing and letting large scale violence continue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bosaso

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bosaso. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Age India and Iron Age India

Hello, Bronze Age India and Iron Age India titles were recently changed without any agreement. Can you please change it back to the original title? It seems to be clean POV pushing. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Ram Janmbhoomi

Koneerad Elst has debunked the speculations of Ramayana in Afghanistan-Pakistan or whatever. Quote " There is no doubt about Rajesh Kochhar's competence in a few subdomains of the variegated evidence, nor about his bona fides. But decisive proof of the AIT, he too has failed to offer. If he wants to trump the case made by his opponents, the AIT skeptics, in a second attempt, I suggest that he start by reading their arguments. For, like in most similar publications, the text and even the bibliography of this book is blissfully innocent of the sheer existence of an anti-AIT argument." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Read my edit summary again, click on the MOS:LEAD and justify how your deletion is supported by policy. Koenraad Elst is entirely irrelevant to the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Thought I should make you aware of this IP. They have a habit of changing numbers throughout articles. Their editing appears to be heading in an area you work.

Oh, and thanks for commenting on the Ismail al-Jazari talk page. Never hurts to have a different perspective on sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Italy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Italy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

IVC and Indo-Aryans

Interesting comment:

The IVC was already in decline when the Indo-Aryans arrive, and it is not a long shot to consider that there may have been conflicts between city-states for limited resources, or even incursions from outside. In this situation, with more men dying fighting, the steppe arrivals may easily have been welcomed as warrior rulers who could protect their subjects, and the males would have had ample single and widowed females to marry.

Or they were hired as soldiers, just like the Germans were hired by the Romans, and eventually took over the Empire? The IVC already was in contact with the BMAC, before both declined. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the horse, the chariot, Dasas, Dasis and the jehadism in Rigveda are all consistent with a sex-dominated expansion. As far as South Asia is concerned, there is no reason to suppose that the expansion in the first millennium BC would have worked any differently from that in the second millennium AD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your constructive correction of an edit that I had just made (the link to the Concerned citizens report). I will make the change accordingly. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

PS - I have added a similar request on the talk page Notthebestusername (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar Dhanbad

Anyone can actually remove a PROD tag, even the article creator. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Bholanath and Devendra Pandey

--Marvellous Spider-Man 09:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

List of battles in the Indian subcontinent

Hi, thanks for reverting Coconut1002's edits. In case you are unaware, List of battles in the Indian subcontinent was moved from List of Indian battles. I'm unsure if this needs to be reverted as well. Thanks—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Captain, yes, I noticed the page move. But I am ok with the new title, given the ambiguities associated with the term "India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Évian Conference

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Évian Conference. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi bud, in response to your mail, I have no idea who the IP is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Longquan celadon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Longquan celadon. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Dardic peoples

To clarify with you, the category removal was because Dardic peoples are a subgrouping of Indo-Aryan peoples, which in turn are a subgrouping of Indo-Iranian (or Indo-Iranic however you may call it) peoples. So removing the Indo-Iranian peoples category from the article is a correct move as Indo-Aryan is a subgrouping of Indo-Iranian peoples tagged as such in the category page. Now you got it?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The category you have removed is for "Indo-Aryan peoples". There is no "Indo-Iranian" in sight. What on earth are you talking about?
Have you forgotten my admonition only a few days ago that any deviation from WP:BRD counts as WP:Edit warring? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are not getting it. The article is tagged under category:Indo-Aryan peoples. Indo-Aryan peoples are a subgrouping of Indo-iranian peoples (orIndo-Iranic if you prefer). That's why I removed category:Indo-iranian peoples from the article and left it at category:Indo-Aryan peoples.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction, I removed Category:Indo-Aryan peoples from the article and placed it under category:Dardic peoples as the lattar is a subgrouping of the former. I think that should clear it up.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Good thing you struck out the last message because it was nonsense. But your first message was the same kind of nonsense and should be struck out too.
What you have done is circular. 'Dardic peoples' are not a subcategory of themselves. As per WP:CAT, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. So please revert yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir Singh Katoch


You seem to have taken umbrage at my edits to this officers service. I have cross referenced the changes - most are from various editions of the Indian Army List. My specialty is 20th century Indian Army officers and I have edited leaving the same references as I have used today on many occasions - what precisely do you not like? Regards NWFrontier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWFrontier (talkcontribs) 13:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The "full citation" should include the exact title, publisher, date and page number. You can see all the other citations in the article and follow their example. The fact that you have done it wrong on previous occasions doesn't mean that you should continue doing so.
This archived document says that the Indian Army List was issued quarterly. So your citation claiming "1936 Indian Army List" is highly inadequate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you are making an unfortunate assumption - during the 20th century the Indian Army List frequency of issue did change. At times it was monthly, at others quarterly also appeared half-yearly, let alone the most secret war time issues which do not follow the sequence.

As well I did not just say "1936 Indian Army List" I always gave the issue it came from, such as "October 1936 Indian Army list". Refraining from mentioning if it was a quarterly or not does not affect the citation - the published title of the "October 1936 Indian Army list" is "The Indian Army List October 1936". I give sufficient information for anyone to track down the correct issue I quoted. The books are pre-ISBN and do not lend themselves to simple citation. The statement "Issued Quarterly" does appear on the front page but does not form part of the title of the book.

I am sorry but I don't agree with your approach - it may be academically correct procedure but it does not invalidate what I have done or what other editors have done. Different to you, yes, but wrong - I do not think so. I improved the vague writing given with hard fact.

I am lucky - I have physical copies of the Indian Army Lists (they are scarce to find) that I have referenced and I know they have an index which if anyone consulted would give them access to the information I used. So would anyone else who had ever used one. NWFrontier —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration to Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

Just seeing the undone edits now. Haven't had time for Wikipedia of late. Initial intent was primarily to update page to include more recent information, as there was several years missing in the entry, as well as some factual errors (essentially allegations presented as documented fact). If you think it needs more sourcing or a change in tone, happy to go back in and do so. --RightPoint (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your edit gives primacy to what the organisation says about itself, which is against Wikipedia policies. Content should be based on reliable third party sources. I also don't think you should have described the edit as a "copy edit", which is expected to mean rewriting the text without altering the meaning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


I think you may have commented in the wrong talk page section. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please apply at New page patrolling rights page

Hello Kautilya, you are a dedicated and active contributor please apply for page patrolling rights on this page. It would have been a pleasure to nominate you. But unfortunately only users by their will can apply there. Please help in reducing the back log at Newpages There are only 400+ patrollers whereas more than 17,000 pages are unreviewed. Please help us there. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you got the rights please patroll pages here Newpages. Thanks Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: thanks for alerting me about new page patrolling. Unfortunately, I can't commit any more time to Wikipedia than I already do. So I would rather not take any more responsibilities. You might try asking some of the newer members, because they may not yet have large commitments and might welcome getting involved in regular Wikipedia tasks. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The new Indian President

If you've got some time you should take a look at his bio: it's in bad shape, but is likely to receive half a million views over the next few days. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Why can't u change the name of Kamma caste Wikipedia page to Kamma Naidu..... 70% Kammas use Naidu as caste title and it is almost synonymous both Naidu and Kamma like Reddy though reddy is used by many castes. Anjana Chaudhari and some more wiki pages r similar to that. Likewise Virender Rag (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Because our guidance is WP:COMMONNAME. Even assuming you are right about your 70 per cent figure, that is just hearsay and we do not pander to the vanity of people but rather work off reliable sources. When the majority of reliable sources start calling the community Kamma Naidu, Wikipedia will also. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. We need to use the term that appears in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But most of the sources say as Kamma Naidu only. Even in Tamil Nadu government records it is Kamma Naidu....not simply Kamma......Kamma Naidu term appears everywer.......what could be the better sources than government records? In my opinion Kamma Naidu page will be more apting rather than just KAMMA because since 1000 years both terms Naidu and Kamma are made journey together and both r mutually associated with each other Virender Rag (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

In the state of Karnataka it is Kamma Naidu everywer.......Just in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in some cases Kamma Naidu doesn't appear because people feel Naidu and Kamma r same and doesn't attach them together Virender Rag (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

90% of Naidus in history are Kammas and till today also. Many fake websites are created in Google claiming Naidu title. In order to be more reliable Wikipedia must be more better information oriented. Attaching Kamma Naidu together for the article surely provide nice path for source of info. Consider my opinion and discuss with your editors about this thank you Virender Rag (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please look through all the sources cited in the article, especially the scholarly sources. If "Kamma Naidu" is more common in Tamilnadu and Karnataka, that can be noted in the lead. But that won't change the title of the article itself.
If you want an elaborate discussion, it should go in Talk:Kamma (caste), not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If you take India on a whole KAMMAS identify themselves as Naidus only......Many newspaper publications and records say the same. So hope u all look into this thank you Virender Rag (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello !

You have been active on wikipedia for quite some time now, your strength, as is clear from your posts on the talk pages of Kashmir Dispute and Radcliffe Award and your understanding of 'scholarly' vs 'not-scholarly', is not your knowledge of the subject but your experience as a wikipedia editor. But nonetheless, I'm learning a lot from you and I do respect you for that ... Thanks a lot, mate. Samm19 (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be making a habit of getting dragged to ANI by IPs...I've left a comment there. Vanamonde (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Did Baharlu dynasty actually exist?? I thought Golconda was ruled by the Bahmani Sultanate in 1374? Any help would be appreciated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very tenuous. The only place that Baharlu is mentioned is in the first source and that doesn't talk about a Baharlu dynasty at all. Likely that this entire article is WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 22:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I came to that conclusion myself, but I always like to check to see if someone else might know something. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Archaeology of Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Archaeology of Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yasin Malik

Why are u editing a reference to an article in Wikipedia itself titled exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Esp. when this sentence The group targeted a Kashmiri Hindu for the first time on September 14, 1989, when they killed Pandit Tika Lal Taploo, Is referenced, and cited with the same article I have mentioned, which u claim is not reliable. If it is not reliable why don't u edit this also. Rameshaha (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not that is unreferenced (even though the reference itself does not meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS), but rather that it is irrelevant to the page Yasin Malik. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello! I'm sorry I did not notice the template you added. I just copy and paste. The template has been added back. Thank you for your message :) Sgsg (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Mian Iftikharuddin

Thanks User:Kautilya3 for sectioning off and expanding the article. The article looks much better now. I mean it sincerely. I think the article is balanced and fair now. Thanks again Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Ngrewal1. Thanks very much for writing! A lot more work is still needed though.
  • We need to better explain why he got dissatisfied with Congress. It appears that he recognized that it was impossible to attract Muslims to Congress and hence left.
  • The Pakistan movement section needs to be expanded. There is more information in Self and Sovereignty.
  • The Pakistan Times section also needs to be expanded. See the Pakistan Times article and the citations there.
  • His role in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 is probably more honourable than our current write-up. General Akbar Khan is not such a great source.
Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe...just maybe there is some hope that India and Pakistan, in future, both can actually wake up to accept new realities and learn to co-exist with each other in a fair way as neighbors. Hopefully, we can set tiny examples here on Wikipedia? All that is needed is mutual respect, sincerity and being fair to each other. Neither one of the countries have to give up their basic ideology and priciples. Let the masses of people decide and I am convinced they want to co-exist peacefully instead of wasting resources on mutual bickering and fighting. I think it's also compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, too. It would certainly help reduce carry-over tension between editors of Indo-Pakistan origin so they can better focus on real editing. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if we can make much difference to the real world, but certainly here on Wikipedia. Please join WP:INDOPAK and spread the word! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


You beat me to it by seconds. In fact, I thought I'd done it, and gave her a warning. Please see my comment and SpacemanSpiff's on her talk page. I think there's a real CIR issue here. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I am more concerned with what the editor has been doing at History of India along with a whole bunch of IP's. It is almost a mafia has taken over this page! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that some of the IPs are constructive, while others are not? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Yet the net effect is recognizably negative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Last revision on Dardic peoples

Kautilya, Category:Dardic peoples is already tagged under Category:Indo-Aryan people, so there is no point in having category and subcategory on the same article.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I finally understand what you have been trying to say. The Category:Indo-Aryan peoples should have a subcategory called "Dardic peoples" as well as a page called "Dardic peoples". These two do not subsume each other. Categories and pages are different kinds of things. That is how categorisation works. You can check other category pages and read the WP:CAT guidelines.
On the other hand, Category:Dardic peoples is not a category for "Dardic peoples". That would be circular. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


It seems that your vandalism is applied in Pulipati Gonki Naidu. Please provide a reason for your edit. It is not good to remove the sources as per your wish. Raja Raja Raju (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Raja Raja Raju, The reason for deleting the source that it is not a reliable source, as mentioned in my edit summary. I am glad that you have queried it here, but you should not have reinstated it before reaching consensus. This constitutes WP:edit warring. Also, please don't use terms like vandalism, without understanding what they mean. That would be considered a personal attack.
See the two Bibliography entries cited at Kamma (caste), which explain why this source is unreliable (even if it isn't obvious from the date and the publisher). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Sitush, can we have your view on this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The book was self-published by a member of the caste and his aim, IIRC, was to glorify it by making dodgy claims about kshatriya status. We don't use self-published works and we don't use caste-affiliated works. The only thing it could be used for on Wikipedia is an article about the author himself, and even there is would be a primary source. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

AE notice

Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior. Sardeeph (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Do I know you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Just out of interest, why did you revert? I just looked at the source (some journal I've never heard of but it isn't on Beall's list). The source definitely mentions the first two additions to the list that you reverted. Didn't check further but perhaps this is a WP:WTAF thing? . - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
What, again? Vanamonde (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Quack, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably. @Bbb23: I think you should have a look...Vanamonde (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Pfft - now this? That's not someone who is new to Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it simply because it was unexplained reinstatement. But this has been going on for a while, including one revert by Materialscientist. But, as Sitush mentioned, the original edit did provide a source and all the incidents are listed there. So there is no problem with it. MBlaze Lightning, please note. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

I did delete this section from Kashmir conflict and I don't see why you needed to revert that "According to Seema Kazi, Indian forces have committed many human rights abuses and acts of terror against Kashmiri civilian population including extrajudicial killing, rape, torture and enforced disappearances. Crimes by militants have also happened but are not comparable in scale with the crimes of Indian forces." Who is Seema Kazi and how is she making such allegations? Does she or you have any proof of this very preposterous allegation? Can I just add a line saying "according to Suyash Agrawal.........."? Is this how it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A suyash (talkcontribs) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Seema Kazi is a recognized scholar and her work constitutes reliable source according to Wikipedia policies. There might be WP:NPOV issues with the content but you need to discuss them on the article's talk page. You can't delete the content just because you don't like it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment deleted

Could you pls reinsert your comment in the middle? I got some problem with my browser and cannot manipulate it right. Thank you and sorry for inconvenience. -- (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Internet Archive

According to this Indian Wikipedians can no longer archive URL's ?? (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it says that is going to be blocked in India, which is more serious. Hopefully, people can convince the cour that it is unnecessary. Or may be can change their policies to weed out pirating sites. But, yes, this is a cause for concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Make your own message!

Make your own message!
Ah, and if you use "Make your own," and photoshop or GIMP in combination with an online GIF-maker, you can stretch the boundaries of your creativity faaaaaaaar beyond the limitations of those pre-figured templates :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

  By typing in a message?... Oh, and using the link, witht eh heart-symbol, in the tabs at top of the talkpage. Typically, you won't see this link at your own talkpage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, great! I never relaized that the heart symbol generates a much better message than the templates. Thanks very much! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ram Janmabhoomi Page

Kindly let me know what wasn't neutral in my edit & I'll back it with court orders. As a lawyer, I'd love to challenge this. However, in absence of same, the same yardstick must be applied to the current content of the page which provides no credible links & is therefore ineligible to be termed "neutral". I have backed ALL my edits with links. Thanks. Jimmy9bond (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That is great. Can you then apply your lawyer's mind to tell me which sentence or sentences in the cited source imply what you wrote:
The Allahabad High Court in its judgement confirmed that the birth place of Lord Ram was indeed at the same place in Ayodhya on which Babri Mosque was erected.[1]
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be an egoist & since you've reverted in the manner you deemed fit, it opens doors to treat you with the same. 1) The source quoted, you didn't quite read it. But you should've read the headline at least if not reading the article of a reputed national daily at least. Or you skipped it because you didn't find it "neutral"? ;) 2) Allow me in that case to embarrass you further by asking you to read the Allahabad HC judgement, which you should've before showing your shallow anti -Hindu bigotry. Quoting the exact court order verbatim: Issue No. 1b: Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same? Answer: Affirmative, Yes. The above question was put across a 3 judge bench & was won with an "affirmitive" yes (2-1) by Justices Sudhir Agarwal & Dharamveer Sharma. Kindly DO NOT, & I repeat for the sake of your fragile, ill-equipped ego, DO NOT Google search the court verdict PDF as you'll find it "not neutral". Hope after this dressing down (publicly) you'll begin to stand by truth, talk to people politely & learn to research on subjects before approving/disapproving legally tenable edits. But then you edited back Lord Rama to Rama. Sad to see such Hinduphobic extremists guised as editors. What has Wikipedia been reduced to. Sad state of quality. Hope someone intervenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talkcontribs) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You have completely dodged the question I asked. What part of the source supports the sentence you wrote? This is a Wikipedia requirement: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). Without doing this you are not going to get anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The headline. Care to read it? And what made you revert Lord Ram to Ram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talkcontribs) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Read: "Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram's birthplace: High Court The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram\'s birthplace." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talkcontribs) 19:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the headlines don't count. They are often sensationalised slogans invented by copy editors. Unless the substance of the headline is written in the body with enough supporting detail, it should be ignored. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
As for "Lord Ram", see WP:RNPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I knew this would be your bigoted reply. Hence copy-pasted the 4 introductory lines of the article. But if the court order doesn't count clearly the content of the article (backing the headline) won't count either. Right? Lol. Jimmy9bond (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If you keep goiong with these pesonal attacks, you are going to get blocked. So, quit making them and focus on the issues.
Koenraad Elst[1] does a good job of analysing the Ayodhya judgement. Here is what he says:

Mr. Justice Dharam Veer Sharma opens by affirming: “The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram.” Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal concurs: “The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.” The one Muslim on the Bench, Mr. Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, isn’t equally affirmative on this point, and merely accepts: “That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram”. That is why: “[M]uch before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi [‘Sita’s kitchen’] had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same.”

So, one judge says that it is the birthplace. One says it is the birthplace by faith and belief, and the third says that at some pont Hindus started identifying it as such. Hardly a unanimous opinion. The Hindustan Times copy editor has to make up a pithy slogan to sell his newspaper. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't sell anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Elst, Koenraad (September 2011), "Ayodhya's three history debates", Journal of Indian History and Culture

1) I had already said that in the 3 judge bench, it was a 2-1 judgement in favour of the Hindus. What great finding have you done in pointing out that the Muslim judge differed although not in entirety? 2) You can start personal attacks by saying "apply your lawyer's mind" or by calling editor of a reputed news daily as one who "make up a pithy slogans to sell his newspaper". But calling out your bigotry is a personal attack. 3) Hindustan Times is not unanimous, but 1 judge out of 3 differs in a judgement, that is accepted as unanimous & must be accepted as the final word on a Wiki page? That's your neutrality?

Go suck on your hypocrisy & block me all you want. Better to lead a life which sees the other side & respects them than to lead a life of a bully who pushes propaganda. Your Karma will strike back at you even if no one watches you one day. Mark my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talkcontribs) 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion to Talk:Ram Janmabhoomi. Please post your responses there. I do not wish to receive any more messages from you on my talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Musunuri Nayaks

Mallampalli Somasekhar Sharma and Prasad are two prominent historians to say Musunuri Nayaks are Kammas. Musunuri surname is only present in Kamma caste based on that they theorised caste of Musunuri Nayaks. How can u say caste identities doesn't exist until last stages of Vijayanagar empire????After formation of Caste identities only the House names for Telugu people are formed. Based on useless kaifiats some people told Madurai nayaks as balijas though there is no supporting evidence for those kaifiats. Though Musunuri is present only in Kamma y can't u people recognize them as Kammas???? Rajal naikil (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Kamma caste

Remove the ancient history section. Its absolutely rubbish there is no proof to say Kammas came from kurmis....this is not encyclopedic Rajal naikil (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't suppose you know Reforety, by any chance? Or perhaps their, ahem, "friend", Rajesh rao kumar? You're doing similar stuff to them and it is likely to end up with the same outcome, ie: you will be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

I guess it's deeply painfull, if not impossible, for Indian nationalists to admit that the Vedic culture came from Pakistan, so to speak. Also because, and I've seen this argument at a forum, because it would mean that Islam is no more invasive than the oldest core of Hinduism, which would put Islam at an equal status as Hinduism, and relegate the Vedic culture to the status of an invasive culture. It would also mean that the Dravidian nationalists and the Dalits have got a point when they state that they were in India before the Vedic people, and that the oldest Indian culture is the Dravidian and tribal culture, which were incorporated into "Hinduism," that is, into the synthesis of the Vedic-Kuru/Bharat culture and indigenous cultures and religions. Painfull... I can understand that these discussions, including IAmt, are so loaded in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is also the term "Vedic" itself, which promotes the myth that there was only one Vedic culture. The Rigvedic Aryans were jihadists, not unlike the Turkic invaders of the 2nd millennium AD. But the rest of the Vedas were developed inside India, in the Kuru state, which represent a synthesis between the Indians and the Aryans. The Mahabharata war represents a conflict between the two groups in which the "jihadists" were defeated. So it wasn't at all a loss for the Indians, but only for the modern day Vedic propagandists. (I wouldn't stretch the Ayan-Dravidian distinction too far. There were enough Dravidian words in the Vedic Sanskrit itself and, later, the Dravidian gods entirely jettisoned the Aryan gods and the later languages labelled "Indo-Aryan" by linguists are really Dravidian languages that borrowed Indo-Aryan words. Linguists haven't bothered to explain anomalies like why Hindi should use a Dravidian word for the horse!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Badme

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Badme. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Hello, I need your help. User:Maestro2016 is using this source by Vincent Arthur Smith for Maratha related articles to describe the crimes committed by them. Is this a reliable source? It seems like a lot of old Orantial despot judgment by this 19th-20th century author. User:Maestro2016 seems like using that to spread his POV.[1] ( (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC))

As per WP:HISTRS, recent scholarship is more appropriate. If later sources contradict VA Smith, they should take priority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Utcursch is your expert on this period of history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Credentials of the author aside, Vincent Arthur Smith's books are pretty much obsolete: everything covered in those books has been covered in newer, better sources which do not suffer from colonial-era biases. I wouldn't use his book as a source for the history-related articles. utcursch | talk 17:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Utcursch and Kautilya3 can you pleas help me. Thomas.W keeps reverting back NPOV. Kindly advise what I can do? (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
@IP: You make lots of changes on lots of articles, using lots of IPs (all geolocating to the same area...), without discussing your edits, even when told to do so by the multiple editors who have reverted your edits. Causing enough disruption on multiple articles for articles to be protected, just because of you... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W please read WP:WRONGVERSION, I was defending established content. Utcursch clearly mentioned, VA Smith is an obsolete source. You kept putting it back. Clear NPOV on your part. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
@IP I didn't revert you until others had, a quick look at your edits also showed what seems like POV to me, and being the "established version", as you claim, doesn't matter, since everyone is responsible for what they add, no matter how long it had been in the article before being removed. Being reverted means having your edit challenged, which per WP:BRD means that you must discuss it on the talk page before doing it again (unless there's a very good reason for reverting, such as removing vandalism), which you haven't done. And that's why the articles where protected. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC) (PS. When you link to something, please read the page you link to first. WP:WRONGVERSION is, as clearly stated at the top of the page, a humorous page, making fun of people who believe that there really is such a thing as a "right version" or a "wrong version" in a content dispute...)


Thomas.W please answer how VA Smith is reliable? You put that obsolete source back. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
@IP I have no intention of taking part in that discussion since a quick look at the edits gives the impression that both versions are POV, but for different sides, just like most articles about that part of the world (and also several other parts of the world, for that matter...). So it's up to you and the others to slug it out, but without a revert-war while it's being discussed... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Thomas.W Only one who is disputing it is you. No one else has a problem with removing VA Smith. Utcursch clearly said it was obsolete. As such, you are the one who is disputing removal of this content. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

IP, I have advised you before to register an account. Unless you have an established track record, it will be difficult for people to take you seriously. Making unregistered edits is only good for minor edits that are non-controversial. If you want to get into long debates, continuity is needed.

Secondly, when an edit is reverted, the standard recommendation is for you to open a discussion on the article's talk page. You should do that and ping Utcursch from there so that he can offer his opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Kalash people

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Kautilya3,

The following shows that you removed what I consider to be a part that balances a one-sided, biased exposition. Can you add back what you removed? Thanks.

17:33, 17 August 2017‎ Kautilya3 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,997 bytes) (-2,998)‎ . . (All this content better belongs in the 2017 China-India border standoff article) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4math (talkcontribs)
@Adam4math:, you need to explain on the article talk page why the present content lacks balance. And, please make sure that you understand what WP:BALANCE means before you do so. Wikipedia's BALANCE means balancing reliable sources, not balancing China and India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page. Please, again, do not misunderstand me and charge me of bringing nationalities and ethnic origins into the discussion - This about India as a party in the dispute, as in court cases.
I consider it harassment when someone persistently misuses wikipedia policy to question my integrity and judgement in handling the articles related to Doklam. Did you notice that I just added a paragraph for on the single most important and the only official document India released in order to strengthen its case and help the reader to understand better the situation, along with its "convenient and official link" at India Ministry of External Affairs? But what did you do with my edits? What did the other editors in India do with my edits? Do you understand what the media hyped (whether in India or China) does not matter, but everything goes back to what the law says in this standoff, and the document I added for India side is the only legal document that matters so far for its case?
I initially thought maybe it was China's fault in the dispute . But as I get thoroughly educated on the matter, truth emerged to me. As I advised you before, be brave and truly patriotic as Dr. Manoj Joshi and Mr. Sourabh Gupta and other patriotic Indians, face the truth and reality and educate India public about it, avoid using threatening words like you said in another note to me about your country's attitude towards China. Help bring the standoff to a peaceful and happy end and live peacefully with your neighbor China. Imagine what would have happened if India had a neighbor like a western country other than China. China has peacefully settled its land-based border disputes with all its 14 neighbors except India and Bhutan, but India is using security and other lame reasons as excuses to prevent Bhutan from reaching border agreement with China. And India is blaming China for treating it so special from what I read in India sources. China is working hard to settle its maritime disputes peacefully with all its maritime neighbors, and so far not a single bullet was fired. I only wish one day, there are no borders between any countries and people all over the world can live together peacefully. Adam4math (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, You are warned. You are engaging edit war at [12]. I'd like you to fix it asap -- Adam4math (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, You are engaging edit war again at [13]. -- Adam4math (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, You are engaging edit war again at [14]. -- Adam4math (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adam4math: you are apparently labelling every edit that you don't like as "edit warring". Please see what is meant by WP:Edit warring, and stick to the definition. Making unfounded allegations is disruptive.
In the first two edits, I have asked for page numbers for the citations. You, or whoever else added those citations, need to supply pagenumbers.
In the last edit, my edit summary says "WP:UNDUE for lead". Please check MOS:LEAD which explains how the lead should summarise the body, but not duplicate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Somaliland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Somaliland. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Kautilya3, the OSM Location map is far better and should stay the only map in the article. Regards, Railfan (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Ignoring my friendly and patient advice, you keep on engaging edit war here:

19:39, 21 August 2017‎ Kautilya3 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,069 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (→‎Sino-Bhutanese border dispute at Doklam per sources originating from India/Bhutan: Discuss it on the talk page if you have issues with the sources) (undo | thank)

You know very clearly that editors in India have hijacked all pages related to Doklam. You know that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to their talk pages.

You also deleted my previous warnings about your edit war from this section. How smart! What do you have to hide? Adam4math (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you are confident about your "truth" and actions, why do you hide my warnings on your edit war by removing them? Adam4math (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Reference [6] linking to the text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at
However, after you made several changes, the link does not work any more at That was why warned you about edit war once. Adam4math (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I have retrieved the citation. You need to add the time in the video where the information is to be found.
Please don't put your comments in threads started by other people unless you are extending the same conversation. It is difficult to find them otherwise. I have moved your earlier comments to the thread titled "Gipmochi" below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Algerian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Algerian War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What is this guy doing?

Need your help with Adam4Math, he just hides stuff with a minor tag, tries to change edit summary to divert attention, what is he on about? I cant handle him alone.Jasonprost (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it is a combination of WP:CIR, WP:POV and WP:NOTHERE. I think we have given him enough rope.
RegentsPark, please take a look at these edits done today [15], [16], [17]. These were after your second warning I think. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
RegentsPark, the user is editing anonymously now. Surely, the IP should be blocked because it is being used for block evasion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if not related to what you were discussing, but kindly look at [18] which is constantly getting modified without any explanation. Thanks and good work fighting all the vandalism mate, much appreciated. PowellKor (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


Looks very much like another Fazian sock, what do you reckon? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Nope. It's this guy. —MBlaze Lightning T 11:09, 3 September 2017 (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. 解放的高加索 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Peoplethat live in glass houses! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Has vanished. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice user name! But I don't think I ever encountered the guy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Validity of Citation.

Kautilya3, I have checked the citation, If you could add one which has not been removed, since the one you are reverting to is not valid. --Todualable (talk)

I have no idea what you mean by "[it] is not valid". Sources don't have to be online for them to be cited. In any case, I have added a web archive, which you should have looked for yourself. If the source does not support the content, you can added a {{not in source}} tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant the sourcing of this article was not verified, it would not be appropriate to put a statement about killing NATO soldiers from an unreliable source. Please read the article, the statements from the official were could not be verified. But I am not one to get into needless arguments, therefore I will add the Tag you suggested. Although it would be more accurate to add a line, "this statement could not be verified" after the Bounty on NATO soldiers statement. Please reply to confirm. Thanks. --Todualable (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Todualable
Well I see the content in the source. So if you tag it, you will be asking for trouble. If you want to contest it, you should open a discussion on the article talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully you saw the part "CanWest News Service yesterday could not independently verify Mr. Saifullah's comments, and the district leader did not provide any direct evidence to prove the allegations." Therefore I am not looking to contest the article it self, just add a statement saying the allegations were not verified. --Todualable (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Todualable
In that case, I suggest that you delete the content as well as the citation, copy it to the talk page, and leave a note saying that the source is not strong enough. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice --Todualable (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Todualable
Return to the user page of "Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 9".