Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 20 January 2015

Kautilya3, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Thank you for your prompt correction on Bal Gangadhar Tilak page

Hi Kautilya3, I think you got confused between the two of my edits. The edit you are talking about is different from the diff I provided in that section. Thank you for promptly updating the book edition. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Yes, I understand. However, I do mean it when I say you are being entirely negative. Can you do some research and find new material for Misplaced Pages, rather than merely nitpicking on other people's material? For instance, we don't yet have any information on Angana Chatterji's ISI connections. That should be of interest to you? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to hate my edits! I have created new articles too! What's wrong in making corrections? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with making corrections as long as your overall objective is to contribute knowledge to the world. But I see you focused almost exclusively on contesting other people's knowledge or writing. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That is your analysis. So, are you tracking my edits? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Of course I do. Misplaced Pages is a community, and we depend on trust. When I saw that you reverted edits within 10 minutes of noticing a page number issue, I checked your contributions and I see a pattern of such reverts. This is a big waste of time for everybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Despite our difference of opinion on the content at BGT page I appreciate your concern and efforts. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, from my perspective, it was not 'page number issue': I had the given reference and I searched the entire book and did not find it. The edition of the book itself was changed later. I hope you can see my point. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Bladesmulti (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Kautilya3, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your interest in Misplaced Pages. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive contributor. Your contributions are part of the historical record of Misplaced Pages. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of alternative accounts

Hello Kautilya3, your use of alternative accounts has been mentioned on my talk page and, quite frankly, I find it problematic, because you have violated the relevant policy, even if that was not your intention. First, you violated it by participating in the same discussion with both accounts and then you probably violated it again when you participated in an ArbCom case request using this Kautilya3 instead of your primary account (I say probably because you say you undisclosed the connection to only one arbitrator and not to the entire arbitration committee, so, as far as I'm concerned, I'm more inclined to consider it undisclosed for the purposes of WP:ILLEGIT, though reasonable people may disagree here). Now, I don't think a block is necessary, because I consider this violation accidental, but I have to ask you to please choose one account and only edit from it, abandoning the other entirely: while it's possible to have an undisclosed alternative account for privacy reasons, its use is subject to various and limitations and, anyway, it's considered inappropriate to edit within the same topic area with two different accounts. Salvio 10:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the Praveen Togadia dispute, concluding that other dispute resolution processes should be attempted first. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A cup of tea for AmritasyaPutra, a kitten for you: stay calm and relaxed. I first wnated to remove the above warning, but I don't know if I'm allowed to do so. I'll check. he did himself! Great!!! Now that's really cool!

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

JJ I was removing it when you made this edit and there was an edit conflict. It was the wrong template. Kautilya3, I am just putting in simple words here -- kindly stop commenting on me and elaborating your ideas of admin examining me, if you do hold a complaint and think it is disruptive then take appropriate action and close the chapter once and for all instead of re-igniting it every alternate day. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should both bear in mind that you have different opinions and interests reagrding India. That's quite common; I'm still shocked sometimes by the agression and hatred at India-related pages. Westerners tend to beleive this fiction of "spiritual India"; well, from what I see at Misplaced Pages... But this is also teaching me, again and again, how important it is to listen to another one, and to try to understand what's important to the other, even the more when I disagree. After all, we're all human (yeah, even that stupid *** who doesn't understand anything at all too; he too is working hard to gain some dignity and respect. Pfff, enough preaching for today...) Hey, India needs all of you!!! Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you very much for your kitten! It is always nice to make friends on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand what is going on here. I am neither angry nor annoyed with AmritasyaPutra. I am frustrated with him, which is an entirely different phenomenon. At the moment, I am only able to spend about 10% of my time in creating content and need to spend 90% of my time in arguing with Amritasya on entirely spurious issues. If my frustration is to be removed, his editing behaviour needs to change. If you can bring about such change in him, my kudos to you. I also believe that the differences between him and me are not only in our opinions regarding India. They are much more crucially about what Misplaced Pages is about. I see my role as documenting and providing information to people. I believe he sees his role as blocking information from appearing here. The majority of his work on Misplaced Pages is devoted to reverting other people's edits, deleting information, objecting to information based on spurious grounds and often imaginary policies that he makes up for himself. If you can turn him into a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages, I would be entirely happy to collaborate with him in producing content. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your commentary of edits done by me is misplaced and inflammatory. --AmritasyaPutra 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Think about it, AmritasyaPutra, just think about it: what does this mean to him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused, I honestly don't know what you mean to convey. Probably it makes him even more bitter? -- Is that what you meant? Lets all meet for tea at my house... that will be fun I can throw napkins at Kautilya3. :-) --AmritasyaPutra 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to help him, and relieve your frustrations. As for the napkins: that's better! Now we're laughing (at least I am; I hope Kautilya3 doesn't feel offended). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Since everybody seems a lot happier now, I'd just like to add that I more or less echo Kautilya's concerns; that I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time quibbling with User:AmritasyaPutra about stuff that should not really be quibbled about. The funny thing is that despite the mayhem of the last few days, our biggest clash was not any of the recent ones. That said, now that JJ is mentoring Amritasya, I'm hoping that we can cooperate, at the very least; after all, we did do so once, in a different time and age. I am posting here because I am still banned from AP's talk. As a gesture of good faith, I am willing to allow him to post to my talk once again, provided those posts are not template warnings, which he flings around far too liberally. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You pinged me too. If you want to oblige me, stop these unfriendly commentary. Last time I can be bothered to say this. Avoid following me around. I definitely do not get the idea why you want to say banned from AP's talk -- it is entirely upto you. "Good faith" should be in action not this covert attack. :-) --AmritasyaPutra 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course I pinged you; the message is directed at you! I am not attempting to oblige you in any way; I am trying to ensure our time is spent productively. The rationale behind my "attacks," as you call them, is clearly visible in your interaction history. In any case, I am not reflexively going to reinstate the ban on my talk; but template warnings from you are not welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dude, 'I' stop here. Have a nice day. :-)--AmritasyaPutra 16:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the sense I get is that User:AmritasyaPutra doesn't want us to make any comments on his editing/debating style etc. I guess he had enough of it. Fair enough. I will leave it to Joshua do any coaching that may be necessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

When you assert that you people felt your time was wasted in discussion -- I agree (so don't waste it). Judgmental remarks are (more) reflective. Let us give it a try. --AmritasyaPutra 02:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

M. S. Golwalkar

Dear Sir, it would be highly appreciated if you and Van wait for a discussion on article talk page before removing established (was in the article was long) referenced content that seems a little contentious. The article was read and copy-edited by four editors recently and there was no objection to the text or the reference and imho the replaced text is selective and not in neutral tone. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sir, let me add that I have no objection to further adding referenced text. But the content that was added was selective and not neutral in tone imho. And some referenced text which was there for long was removed. Perhaps we can work on it together in draft space? That would be nice collaboration and avoid any edit war in article space. We can probably work it upto good article level together here? Looking forward to collaborate with you! Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I read the Jaff piece and it is informative. I have added it myself. The other article by Vidya Subramanian was under "opinion" section of The Hindu and there were few factual inaccuracy in it which were subsequently Pointed by SG and acknowledged by The Hindu (it came in the print edition, I am not able to find the summary note in online archives). Thanks! --AmritasyaPutra 05:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Sure, I am always happy to discuss things on the talk page and so is User:Vanamonde93. There is no hurry. The previous source was S. Gurumurthy, a leader of the Sangh Parivar, who is de jure unreliable. Whatever he says must to be corroborated by other sources, and in this case it wasn't. His piece was haf of a debate in the The Hindu, and whoever wrote the article took his piece and ignored the other piece. This is the most blatant instance of WP:POV if I ever saw one. Vidya Subrahmaniam, who is a senior editor of The Hindu contradicted everything he said and even produced clippings from the old editions of The Hindu to prove her point. So, pretty much nothing from the S. Gurumurthy source is usable on Misplaced Pages. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How credible is VS opinion which she prints in her own paper? SG backed up his statements with documents too. S. Gurumurthy is a scholar to say the least. You write, "whoever wrote the article took his piece and ignored the other piece. This is the most blatant instance of WP:POV if I ever saw one." may I say that you did the same by deleting his piece and adding bulk content from the other piece? --AmritasyaPutra 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I "demean" anybody? I just said he is not reliable (as per Misplaced Pages policy). Any member of the Sangh Parivar counts as a "first party" when writing about the Sangh Parivar. A reliable source must be third party, which he isn't. End of story.

By the way, this discussion has gone beyond a personal conversation. So, if you want to continue it, please copy it to the article talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: The right thing for you to do would be to state on the article talk precisely what bits from the S. Gurumurthy piece should be included and why. You might also state what bits from Vidya Subrahmaniam you dispute. Please be as specific as possible. When you talk vaguely about policies and rules, and nothing about substance, the discussion quickly degenerates into a slugfest and nothing is achieved. (By the way, I have read all the pieces in question and made a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. If you want to question anything, please do. But please be specific!) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with me according to your reverts at M. S. Golwalkar. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity. Instead of edit warring, please participate in the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you.--AmritasyaPutra 10:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Aryan

Right about what? The edit summary was "the word arya was not used in sikhism as sikhism was started in 15th century this word was unknown to sikh gurus." This is ludicrous. The word Arya would have been known to Sikh gurus as to every other guru in India at the time, or are you seriously suggesting that the word which is central to Sanskrit religious culture had somehow become "unknown" in the 15th century? What on earth do you base that claim on? Paul B (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are winding me up, aren't you? "Arya" is a dead word. It has been dead for a long time, long before Sikhism was born. Arya Samaj resurrected the word for political purposes. Anyway, the right way for you to contest it would be to produce some reliable sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dead word? What planet are you living on? Yes, of course the Arya Samaj used it to bash Sikhs, but that does not somehow mean that the Sikh gurus, long before Dayananda was born, somehow did not know a word that recurs repeatedly in Sanskrit and Prakirt texts. That's nonsensical. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But, then, you should be able to prove it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: Perhaps a clarification is in order. The term arya has been used frequently, and probably continues to be used, in the sense of a "noble person". But the use of arya to mean an ethnic group is entirely limited to the Vedic times. The historian Romila Thapar has said that it is doubtful if it was used in that sense even in Vedic times. (Probably they were just trying to say we are the "cultured" and those are the "brutes".) The term arya dharma, to mean the religion of these people, is not something I have ever seen. The paragraph in question doesn't give any citations for it either. So I am going to tag it as "citation needed." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's doubtful whether the word was used in an ethnic sense even Vedic culture, though it clearly is in Iranian literature. But that's not what the deleting editor said is it? He said that the word was unknown to Sikh gurus, which is absurd. And you agreed with him. By your own argument, there is no reason to separate Sikhs from other religions in the context of this section. Its use or non-use with ethnic meaning applies equally to Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From Living Together, Fordham University Press, New York 2013: Nehru proposes the concept of Arya dharma to encapsulate all faiths—Vedic and non-Vedic—that emerged in "India." There are more academic sources that discuss the phrase. Argument of "the word arya was not known to sikh Guru" is not defensible. --AmritasyaPutra 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is brilliant! Thanks for finding it. It fills with me great joy. We can now credit the "arya dharma" reference to Nehru. Secondly, this proves that Nehru had as much Hindutva as your next door neighbour. All the demonisation of Nehru that the Sangh Parivar has been doing was pure bull shit! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

copy-edit Shiv Sena

Can you copy-edit this cleanup of Shiv Sena here? Concerned editors have been pinged to collaborate here. It has been mentioned duly on the article talk page also. The article was in very bad shape (countless Further reading and See Also entries to say the least). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 08:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will try. Tonight. But, note that just copy-editing is not going to do the trick. There seem to be issues with the sources and how to interpret the sources. I can't look through all of them. I have advised Sd to take them up issue by issue. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The aim is stepwise improvement. I edited assuming everything is supported in the references without deleting any reliable reference. There were few, very few obvious story-telling reference; I removed them, and removed some undue content. If at least three editors have copy-edited the entire article without deleting any reliable reference then definitely it is a step forward! --AmritasyaPutra 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, did you get a chance to check this? --AmritasyaPutra 07:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, yes, I looked at it on the Diwali night. I didn't see any major need for copy-editing either in the public version or your version. The disagreements are on substance, not the words. So, unless you can teach your mentee to debate properly, this is not going to resolve anything, especially because the 'other side' hasn't participated in your stepwise improvement exercise. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Was doing a copy-edit with other editors like you a bad idea? The aim was general improvement of the article, I am absolutely clueless what 'substance' you are referring to or what 'anything' you were thinking of 'resolving'. --AmritasyaPutra 12:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Sdmarathe was edit-warring with User:Vanamonde93 and possibly others when you and I went in to calm him down. Does "copy editing" resolve the issues they were facing? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Vanamonde was edit-warring with Sdmarathe, he reverted him 5 times. Like I said previously copy-edit is for general improvement of the article. --AmritasyaPutra 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There was content that Sdmarathe wanted deleted, and Vanamonde93 didn't agree. So, if you remove even more material in the name of "clean-up", I don't see how Vanamonde93 will agree to it either. This problem is not resolved by "copy editing". Every bit of material that you or Sd want deleted, has to be mentioned one-by-one, justified and consensus obtained. You can of course grow your own version of Misplaced Pages under your User page, but to put it back into the main Misplaced Pages, the issues have to be faced and consensus obtained. I can't be of much help here, because this is not my page and it is not my subject. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly want to keep raking up that incident when all I asked was simple improvements. Suit yourself. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so, the conflicts happen because I want them? You give me too much credit, my friend. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AP, for once I believe this is a simple misunderstanding. The point K3 is making, is that when there is a disagreement over the substance (ie topics, sources, weighting, etc) then fixing language, grammar, and flow is a slight waste of effort. In other words, we should discuss the content and sources before spending time on a copy-edit (or rather, we would like to; if you wish to copy-edit anyway, I have no issues). Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I ever say it is to solve any content dispute? By all means continue the discussion on the article talk page! The cleanup without deleting a single reliable reference (or referenced content) and merely removing an unambiguously bloated see also and further reading section, and following label and such policy is of no good use? Quite a misunderstanding no doubt my friends! Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra 15:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Sdmarathe believes that your clean-up will resolve most, if not all, of his issues, and he doesn't need to do anything. He hasn't followed my advice of raising contentious issues one-by-one in a way that the rest of us can judge them. I will take another look at what you have been done since you seem to have edited further after Diwali. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely clueless why you think so, can you provide diff where the user indicates such belief? He most definitely needs to discuss any contentious content reversal on the article talk page, and I think he took your advise and there is no instance of revert on his part since taking your advise (if I am wrong please provide a diff). Cheers friend! --AmritasyaPutra 17:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what he said diff at 02:55, 23 October. I told him this at 06:25 on the same day, but there hasn't been any follow-up from him. If he has given up his disagreements that is perfectly fine, but I find it hard to believe that he would have. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend, assume good faith , he took your advise and agreed to collaborate following reliable sources. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. After the initial revert on Oct 22-23, I have taken everything since then to the talk pages. I also posted any objection to verbiage to the article's talk discussion. I also read the copy edit and posted that I was fine with it as well (on its talk page) --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Sdmarathe:. I hope you will continue looking at the sources when you want to contest issues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

POK and IOK

Do you agree that all Indian administered Kashmir be called IOK and Pakistan administered Kashmir as POK ? Delljvc (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Delljvc: No, "occupied" is a loaded term. We tend to say "administered" on Misplaced Pages. Wherever the term "occupied" occurs on our pages, it needs to be replaced by "administered". However, if we are citing a source and the source uses the term "occupied", we can't substitute that with something else. I noticed that you were replacing the titles of the newspaper articles to be different from what they were. We don't do that. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Delljvc and Kautilya3, editors have gone over this repeatedly. Either add the POV terms of all sides in all articles or not add at all in any of them and use neutral terms like 'administered' or controlled (if in context). You can see the consensus here (editors from all sides participated) Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December. Hopefully this will end the moot discussion. Simply put PoK / IoK as a terminology or claims in Kashmir dispute and refrain from adding them (esp to the lede) of the three territory articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: Exactly. You will see from this diff that that is what my version was doing. On the other hand, the version you have reinstated has all of Delljvc's POV. So, can you self-revert? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: By the way, Gilgit-Baltistan is not included as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution. So, calling it a "territory of Pakistan" is POV. I changed it to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which should not have an objection from anybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was already linked to Pakistani "administrative" territories. What you were saying was already there. Maybe you missed it. Saying it again and again in the same sentence doesn't make sense but I wont oppose you if you want to re-add just that (but is it really needed?). My main reason for the revert was all the other additions of PoK that you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: I am afraid I am not getting through to you. I am copying this discussion to the article page, which is where it belongs, and asking for WP:DRN. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure... tell me what you want to do here. Rename GB & Azad Kashmir to PoK and Keep J&K as is? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you didn't get to me given the first comment of Delljvc was totally something else... :) I've left a comment at the article talk where you moved this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Misunderstandings happen! Perhaps, you can add a note on the WP:DRN referral that you agree with the changes and they can close the issue.

@TopGun: The only change I have made is to change "territory of Pakistan" in the lead to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir". This change is because AJK and GB are not listed as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution, whereas a "territory" of a country is normally understood to be its part. I could also settle for "administered territory of Pakistan" if that sounds more neutral to you. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with using administered (if you see I am actually favouring it). What I was saying was it is being referred to in the same sentence twice. The last suggest seems more sensible imo according to my previous comments, I wouldn't really oppose the current version too though it's a bit less elegant. For the PoK edits, I guess it was fixation from another dispute at AJK. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

1500 BCE

Mahabharata can not be written before 1000 BCE. It was actually written between 500 BCE and 500 AD. All eminent historians more or less agreed on this. No need to give currency to Myths produced by enthusiasts or interested groups. It beats the common logic of Historiography. Let him come with a reliable source.Ghatus (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I have dug up the sources and added them in the "Sources" section. I suggest you go through them. I am not saying anything either way. But I would prefer to see a substantive discussion instead of an edit war. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Notice that you have removed content sourced from an OUP book. That is not on. My first instinct was to revert your revert. The only reason I didn't was that I recognized your name from earlier edits. Wouldn't it be better to discuss these issues instead of edit warring? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Go to History of India Talk Page.

1. A GoI secretary, not any Historian wrote that Oxford University Press book. Eminent historians like Romila Thapar, RC Majumder , JN Sarkar etc never gave such a date of 1500 BCE when the war might take place (if true) around 900 BCE.

2.It is an individual's( who is neither a historian nor an expert on old texts) opinion trying to be placed a general opinion. Ghatus (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Great Lakes Page

Hi Kautilya,

This is regarding your vote for deletion of the page on Great Lakes. I am working towards improving the page. So, would request you to give me time to make changes and corrections to the page! Sushree27 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, please be sure to include some third party sources: newspapers, magazine articles etc. The wiki page can't just refer to the institution web sites. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am including news articles as references and not the institution website. Hope this works! :) But I really need help with the paraphrasing flag that has been raised. I can't view the link and have no idea what content it is referring to. Now that I have reworked the entire content, can we take that down? Do let me know! Sushree27 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sushree27: I will look into it. Now that you are well-settled, further discussion can take place on the article's talk page rather than here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Somnath and Ghaznavi

Both the wiki pages need serious modifications. They are written in 1920-30s historiography and perfect example of communal interpretation of History. But, now I am extremely busy in exam preparation which is knocking at the door. So. it will take time. I can do minor edits but not major edits now.Ghatus (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

CLEANSTART

Is a concept applied to people who have been blocked or banned, I believe. AP's attempt to drag it up here are misleading at best. I would explain this on his talk, had he not banned me from it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo of Bharatiya Janata Party

Hi, Could you please upload a Flag/logo for the Bharatiya Janata Party article. There was a logo but unfortunately it was delete due to license issue. Therefore, please upload valid license logo for BJP make sure its in SVG format and uploaded in commons section, so that it can be put in other languages as well. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Telangana

The page now does not belong to AP. Hence, kept only Telangana. Now I edited it with summary.--Vin09 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't "belong" to projects. The relevant line in the banner would have said "This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh." Do you have any reason to believe that they don't want to support it any more? Are you a member of the project?

I am also copying this discussion to the article talk page where it rightly belongs. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Shankersinh Vaghela

The wiki article on Vaghela needs changes. It contains unverified tall claims on his behalf, such as a) BJP atually wanted to make him (not Keshubhai Patel) CM in 1995, b) Suresh Menhta was his loyalist, etc etc. His electoral history is sloppily written. I added info about where he was elected from in 1989 and 1991, later 1999 and 2004, where he lost from. I corrected some inaccuracies; for example the following statement is not correct: From 1996 to 1997 he was a member of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. He became MLA in early 1997, not 1996.

I spent 20-25 minutes researching and doing changes. How can you simply roll them back without checking what changes were made, and applying your own knowledge and doing some research yourself? Of course if you are a chamcha of Vaghela, you may want your own version to prevail. In which case you can write whatever you want. But I am assuming you want the article to be factual - and I added facts to it, and removed some tall claims on Vaghela's behalf. I did not add any unwanted praise or unwanted criticism, since I am neutral to him.

I know that you have spent a lot of time. That is why I took the trouble of writing an explanatory message on your talk page. When we see extensive and contentious changes from an unregistered user, without an explanation of what has been done, we are suspicious of what has been done. You can undo my revert if you want, provided you write a detailed note on the article talk page, describing what changes you are making. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 - I edit quite a few wiki pages about Indian politics (strictly to add facts, not to discuss opinions), but had never left a summary of edits before. But you have a point. Since you prefer that a summary of changes be added, I will add a note about the changes. I also found that Vaghela was alleged to have won Lok Sabha elections from seats from which he did not contest, and I set some of that data correct, too. For example, the data for the erstwhile Kapadvanj Lok Sabha seat was plain wrong, but I have corrected it now.

Correcting errors is always welcome. But you need to provide the sources for your new information. Otherwise it is likely to get reverted just the same. You also cannot delete or alter text that has previously provided sources, without having discussed it on the article talk page first. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sambasiva Reddy Aluru

As one of the people to vote for a merge of this article, perhaps you would like to find anything worthwhile to merge into the main article. noq (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014

Hello! This is a reminder about your participation at WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014. Please manually update your assessment score from 14 November 2014 here. Thanks and happy assessing! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Caste system again

There was heavy amount of whitewashing done by the IP address if you see the history of the article. He changed:-

"Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. Between 1860 and 1920, the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior"... to ... "Caste is thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but some contemporary scholars argue that the caste system in its modern form was constructed by British colonial rule. Between 1860 and 1920, the British codified the castes of India and granted administrative jobs"..

No where it says modern or some contemporary scholars.

He changed "This and related collections became controversial for staging extreme effects and constructing identities of various colonised nations".. to .."This and related collections became controversial and were accused of staging extreme effects and constructing identities of various colonised nations. "

Since it is a historically accepted charge, why he needed to add were accused of?

He did that on whole page, and after that he added "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Célestin Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India, quite similar in many respects to the social stratification found in 17th to 19th century Europe."

His citation is not mentioning 17th or seventeenth century anywhere on whole article, nor it says that it existed before the British rule, he has misrepresented that book/link. It is only reporting the relevance of this system when British were already ruling for decades. You think that we can actually use a missionary as citation? When we have already added to the article that caste system in other forms existed prior to British regime. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I have read the Zwart article cover to cover, and I am pretty sure that our text misrepresents what he says. I am also sure that it pretends to present scholarly consensus where it doesn't exist. I had changed "contemporary scholars" to "postmodern scholars" (exactly what the source says), but people changed it back to "contemporary" again. There are multiple viewpoints in the literature, and we are pushing them under the carpet. Perhaps the IP's edits weren't the best possible, but his text is closer to the situation in the sources than the previous text. I promised to summarize the Zwart article on the article talk page, but never got around it. Let me spend some time on it this weekend and we can talk about it again. Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading this article and seeing what it says about Dirks. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Lorenzen, David N. (October 1999). "Who Invented Hinduism?". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 41 (4): 630–659. JSTOR 179424.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Can you self-revert for now? Because his mistreatment of the term its modern form is just out of relevance and other things that he added weren't even supported by the citation. When we say contemporary we are talking about the modern times. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted for now and changed to various contemporary than just contemporary. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2014‎ (UTC)

The problem is not with "contemporary", but rather with selective elimination of the postcolonial aspect. The postcolonials are quite happy to blame it all on the colonial governments. I am sure that the colonial governments have had plenty of faults, but some of these arguments go to rather extremes. Lorenzen made it quite clear what he thought of this particular argument. We are making it appear as if there is a consensus among the contemporary scholars, but the reality is that it is only one extreme wing of the scholars that say this. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava

i have written the facts on the page Bhargava. Bhargavas are Dhusar Brahmins not Dhusar Vaishyas as you have written on page. Discussions on talk page are sham. There are many citations which suggest that Bhargavas are Brahmans but you still call them Vaishya. Stop this non sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on page Bhargava are intriguing. Wonder if you could go through the entire discussions. All discussions are revolving around whether Bhargava community is/was a Brahmin or a Vaishy community. The so called Sanskritisation mentioned by yourself and Sitush, which you claim occured 150 years ago is not applicable here. I have given citations which say that Bhargava community was the 'Rajpurohits' at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan and Hindu king Hemu's ancestors/father were Purohits too in 1500AD. There is hardly any difference in the status of Brahmins and Vaishys. Both are strong communities. However, writing Bhargavas as Vaishyas only confuses their identity and Misplaced Pages should not be a place for such confusion. Resentment of community at this is natural.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bhargavaflame: Sitush is an expert on castes. He has edited/cleaned up hundreds of caste pages like this one, and probably faced contentious disputes on all of them. So, you need to convince him with reliable sources. Caste traditions are folklore and they are created by influential parties at will and propagated. Only serious academic research can determine the truth of their assertions. We all belong to castes ourselves, and we know the unreliability of such traditions for our own castes. So, please don't assume that you are in a unique position. If there are serious academic sources that back up your claims, please find them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try again with more reliable citations. Thanks.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Think what you write

What do you mean by "The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light" . I assume you are also referring to me when you say nominator and his friends. I don't remember having prior interactions with the nominator and if you feel that we are doing something wrong then you know where to report. I would consider this as a personal attack and consider being warned about this. -sarvajna (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, last warning. You have attacked three editors on that page. You are being disruptive. Discuss content, take complaint about conduct to ANI. --AmritasyaPutra 12:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Stating that a person has been canvassed, and providing a diff, is not a personal attack in any sense of the word. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• He has been warned previously on same page by Sarvajna (read above and follow the diff). Accusing editors of WP:FACTION and WP:CANVASSING is serious attack. If you mean it goto ANI. If you find it playful and repeat indiscriminately you will find yourself at ANI. --AmritasyaPutra 12:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I had enough of this. @AmritasyaPutra: Please stop lecturing me on my talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Deep concern

Hi, Just saw all your edits before was really curious , did you or any ony one you knew were deeply affected by the organisations ?. really would like to know about this as you know yourself in media often the truths are twisted ? Shrikanthv (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article

Your article on Agra religious conversions 2014 is very interesting. Keep it up!Thinkmaths (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Per above, interesting article. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, my Christmas gift to Misplaced Pages, to be enjoyed by both the Left and the Right. I will be off for a few days. Enjoy your Christmas, every one! Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please consider participating in the straw poll at Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Straw poll on "Controversy" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your experience with Misplaced Pages so far

Hello Kautilya3,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Misplaced Pages and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gabrielm99: Thanks for getting in touch, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am quite available to have a chat any time during this weekend (10am-10pm UTC). I am not exactly a newcomer though. I have been involved with Misplaced Pages for several years (using an another account), but it is only since this summer that I have been active with regular writing. So, I am new, sort of. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yo RoyalMate1 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Royalmate1: Thanks very much! Very kind. But I wonder what it was that you liked. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably a recent edit RoyalMate1 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have made very nice changes to history pages. Hope to see some more from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, mate :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dugmaia. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Great comment; highly appreciated 'self'-criticism ("self" as the cultural etc background). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Maps

Template:Spread of Vedic culture I bet you'll like this template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We usually assume the beginning of Vedic Period from 1700 BCE, what if we include only those maps that shows the geography after 1700 BCE? Current one duplicates other 2 templates. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If we only include those maps that show the geography after 1700 BCE, the continuity between Kurgan-Andronovo-Vedic is completely lost. And some repetition won't harm the "out of India" adherents (okay, it will harm, but some repetition may help them to get the point). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then title should be changed to something else, like "From Kurgan culture to Vedic culture" or something else, but I don't think that it is even mainstream theory when it is about the origins of Vedic culture. See -Bladesmulti (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I was also doubting about "origins". Ehm, would you also know something more catchy? NB: the short title "Spread of Vedic culture" did not cover the preceding part, namely the origins. ~Interesting topic in itself, by the way: the interaction between proto-Indo-Iranians and the BMAC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied to Template talk:Spread of Vedic culture#Title. To be continued there for the template itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: (Sorry, it has been a busy day.) Maps are always nice, and these ones are beautiful. But, why a template? Do we need this bunch of maps to go in many pages? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Nou ja, "many"; several. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Namaste

How are you doing? Are #Je Suis Charlie T-shirts there in your campus? I wish to make two points, when avoidable it is better to keep comments chronological instead of commenting in middle (in the context of BJP/GA1). Also my objection is not personal, review by involved editor is discouraged in general to avoid setting a bad precedent. It is always better if an uninvolved editor does a GA review, that helps get fresh perspective in improving the article and also increases the credibility of the review. You may not deny that you have edited very closely with the nominator, I have made a comment there that you have much lesser edit count than me but much higher interaction with the nominator, it may not be attributed to the phenomenon of editing in same topic area. --AmritasyaPutra 03:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

My appreciation for your edits is growing and growing! Good and helpful comments on the migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mallory

I've found Mallory: tab reviews. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am surprised that the Google couldn't find it for me. (Or I couldn't think of the right search key!) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elena Efimovna Kuzmina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Europeans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Love Jihad

It is not confirmed whether the issue was under the Himachal dhwani and those dates of citations are incorrect, it is not 15 January, but 8 January, the first day of this news. This all was added under 2014, but not 2015. IP's changes were not bad, but these few errors I had thought of looking, but later. After some days, news was more detailed, and that is what we have to mention. Not just about Kareena Kapoor's morphed picture, it looks less of a community reaction, but more of a gossip/promotion because it is not really encyclopedic or it is telling about their actual aim. There are many representation of Love Jihad, and because this time it resembled/included a photo of Kareena Kapoor it serves no bigger purpose. Finally VHP confirmed that there were no forced conversion in Himachal Pradesh, so did the cops. The drive is going(that's future) to be more about cautioning, the present form of this sentence seems to be speaking like they are attempting to convert. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

Anthony is cool! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! We also need to look at Kuzmina, who seems to have made a decisive difference. That will probably complicate things a lot further. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Who's Kuzmina? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I noticed that one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)