User talk:Kautilya3: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Revolving around Akshant Kautilya Sharma, this story^[1] is an alarm for the Indian nation's authorities to rise before two major problems, namely misoriented youth and the caste-based reservation system take India to the depths of darkness. I also request that an article about the same be written if you consider it fit. It is somewhat popular on Facebook with a cult following for itself on its Facebook page.^[2]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

I am surprised you did not add the fact that India annexed the state? every single source on planet earth states this and this needs to be added please stop your nationalist vomit on wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:7550:5709:B28C:2EA7 (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and NeilN: can we do something about this sock? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the master? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I have no idea. It must have been before my time, but it seems that he/she is now obsessed with me. Seems to feed on talk page discussions and then go on rampage. Going by reputation, it could be User:Nangparbat, but I don't that user all that well. Some older IPs

• 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:A4E6:A3F:C283:FD91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:5D14:164B:83AE:526F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:AC06:C66E:8988:269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and possibly related to this old-style IP 5.71.195.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since it is an IP hopper now, there is little point in blocking them. The best thing to do would be to semi-protect all the pages where they are active. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, now, he is edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Current IP blocked two weeks. If more show up, let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, New IP showed up: 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:C065:BE6D:A813:7ED5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2a02:c7d:14fc:c600::/64 blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: And now LanguageXpert wants to join the party [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You own a copy of Jaffrelot's book on the Hindu Nationalist movements (1920-1990), right? Is there anything you can do with this? It's in really bad shape. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Van, Saraswati Shishu Mandir is just the `brand name' for Vidya Bharati primary schools. It should be merged into the parent article. There is not much independent information available for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I suspected as much. I'll perform the merger soon, after doing one last sweep for sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire wrote "This is not an RfC" What is an RFC? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) An RFC is a Request for Comment. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:RfC is a mechanism to obtain input from a wider Wikipedia community. We might need to go for it eventually but, for the other people to know what is happening, we need to make sure that all the relevant pages are polished up so that there is information when people go looking. That is not the case at present. Most Baloch pages are just stubs.

I really think we would be far better off citing high-quality secondary sources rather than the opinions of Baoch activists, at least for this section. BSO and all other Baloch organisations should of course be covered under their own sections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr/Ms Ghosh (or Kautilya Ghosh), why was the section on Shehla Rashid Shora's Anti BJP/Hindu views deleted? Firstly, all the material was cited appropriately according to guidelines set by Wiki. As an academic and someone formally trained in journalism I am well aware of academic citations for various disciplines, and to report objectively. The first article I cited quotes Shehla says she is not anti-bjp ministers at the outset, and at the end says she is anti-modi. How can this not be factual information, when you yourself have cited those new items in support of the wikipage? Secondly the other article clearly quotes Shehla saying that JNU student activism which will spread all over the country will cause the demise of the RSS. Thirdly, please look at her https://twitter.com/shehla_rashid where she has that meme. As an "intelligent" person you tell us what that meme implies. I can see from the wiki edit pages that you have been the sole person who has prevented clarifications on the 2002 riots. As I wrote to Widr earlier, almost all the Dehli-centric pages have been colored with your point of view. Somehow you because a wiki editor. I don't care to be one, however I will not let someone like you abrogate my rights. So please clarify, without using some broad Wiki guideline to justify you position, on why that is contentious material. Let it be review by more than one other wiki editor, after which I shall decide my next course of action. Human beings have biases, and likes and dislikes. A public forum is one where they are mutually set aside. You seem to think, and support Shehla Rashid Shora, and others like her who think that their views are bias free, and also use your wiki editorship or whatever it is that you have to do the same. If you want to disagree please do that, but be fair about it. What you do reflects a lot on who you are as person. From what I have seen in life such individuals have a deep-seated lack of self-worth which is projected in such behaviors. This is what totalitarian states and despots do. This is what Shehla Rashid Shora accuses the present Indian Govt off--without any tangible evidence. So please fight fair. Thank you.19:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)2602:30A:C7D7:E590:D1B3:F74D:17DE:1462 (talk)

Dear anonymous, Wikpedia is not a newspaper. So your journalistic skills are unlikely to be of much use here. Please study the Wikipedia policies I posted on your talk page, especially those on reliable sources. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, not our personal views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you made a change to my edit, labeled it unconstructive, reverted my reversion, and now threatening to impose a three-revert rule, that only you know best. Please refer this comment and the edits I made to another editor. Since you are accussing me of warring edits, which you speak of in third-person, you are the one doing it. In newspaper or academia that is why they have multiple reviewers and editors and blind processes. What you are doing is OK, except that it is biased and you hide under wiki rules that you know best. Please refers my edits to another editor. Thank you2602:30A:C7D7:E590:D1B3:F74D:17DE:1462 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an edit is reverted, you are advised to follow WP:BRD, i.e., discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and wait for consensus to develop. Repeatedly reinstating preferred content constitutes edit-warring, and it will result in blocks. You are still new here. I would advise you to take the time to learn the Wikipedia policies and understand how Wikipedia works. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "you are still new here" you make many mistakes. Firstly, it is neither grammatical by US English, and certainly not by the Queen's English. Secondly, you are making an unfounded assumption that I am a novice to wiki, and hence the inference I do not know your rules. You are making a substantive mistake by saying that. A "so-called" editor does not make unwarranted ad hominem attacks. Now if I did that I would be banned or something like that. What applies to me should apply to you as well. They say: "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" I hope that saying conveys meaning to you. I would like an apology for that unwarranted personal attack, and ask for this post to be escalated and viewed by other wiki editors. Thank you very much.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:D1B3:F74D:17DE:1462 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"From what I have seen in life such individuals have a deep-seated lack of self-worth which is projected in such behaviors. This is what totalitarian states and despots do" - talking about personal attacks. I guess your previous Wiki-incarnations have been blocked? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kautilya3,

You cancelled my entry about this topic with arguing it didn't rely on trustable sources. If you had researched conflict between Marathas and Afghans, you found them. I summarized this conflict:

Maratha Empire had the biggest power in Indian subcontinent. They also nominal overlords of Sindh and collected Chauth between 1752 and 1762^[1]. Their supremacy was challenged by newly founded Durrani Empire. Ahmad Shah Durrani. He invaded India once and advanced to Sirhind by January 1748. But, he was defeated at Manupur by Mu'in-ul-Mulk, was Mughal general in March 1748 and was forced to leave Punjab and Lahore to Mughals. After the victory, Mu'in-ul-Mulk became governor of Punjab for Mughals. Ahmad Shah renewed invasion of India in December 1749 and forced him to promise the revenues of the Chahar Mahal (Gujrat, Aurangabad, Sialkot and Pasrur) which had been granted by the Muhammad Shah, Mughal emperor to Nader Shah in 1739.

These revenues wasn't paid in 1751. Thus, Ahmad Shah used this situation for 3rd invasion of India. He marched from Kabul in 21 September 1751 and defeated Mu'in-ul-Mulk in March 1752. Thus Ahmad Shah forced Mughal emperor to cede provinces of Lahore and Multan. Also Mu'in-ul-Mulk became governor of Punjab behalf of AfghansCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. The city was plundered and the defenceless inhabitants was massacred. Mathura, Brindaban and Akbarabad faced with similar fate of Delhi. He was forced to return home after outbreak of cholera among his troops. He made Najib Khan,was a Rokhilla chef, as Mir Bakshi (regent) of the Mughal emperor and Timur Shah, his son, as governor of Punjab. He had no sooner left India than the Sikhs and Adina Beg, rose in revolt against Timur Shah^[2]. Also, Raghunathrao, Maratha commander-in-chief rejected the matrimonial alliance established between empires of Durrani and Mughal and captured Delhi after a 2 month siege in 3 September 1757. Najib Khan was forced to leave his position and Imad ul-Mulk was reinstated^[3]. Adina Beg, exgovernor of Punjab, requested help from Marathas for regaining his position. Marathas with troops of Adina Beg and Sikhs marched against Afghans. Sirhind fell in 21 March 1758, followed by Lahore (20 April 1758), Attock (28 April 1758) and Peshawar (8 May 1758). Kashmir was also conquered.

Ahmad Shah sent Jahan Khan to the Punjab. He initially regained Peshawar in March 1759 and Attock in April 1759 but he was defeated by Sabaji Patel at Rohtas. Thus, Marathas regained lost cities in May 1759. Jahan Khan's failure provoked him to begin 5th invasion of India. He rapidly routed Marathas and regained lost territories within 2 months. Also Mian Ghulam Shah Kalhoro, was ruler of Sindh, won a battle against Rao of Kuch, a prominent vassal of the Marathas, and evicted Sindh from Maratha vassalage. He was nominally subordinate to Afghans since 1762^[4].

Sincerely,Cemsentin1 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cemsentin1, thanks very much for your contributions and also for this detailed response. I reverted your edit initially precisely for the reasons stated in the edit summary, the lack of a source and unclear writing. You reinstated it with a source and clearer statement. I didn't revert it any further. However, your sentence:

However regions of Kashmir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Western Punjab, were captured by Marathas between 1758 and 1759, remained in Afghan rule before ascension of Sikh power^[5]

is still needs a grammatical correction. It should be "which were captured by Marathas" ["which" missing]. Secondly, please add full citations for your all your sources: author, title, publisher and, most importantly, page numbers. Plain URL's should never be used as citations. Please see WP:Link rot. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are sourced materials. We are from that region. you being an indian are taught that pakistan forcefully included us but thats not the truth, i have already notified the admin about this issue until he comes back with a reply, the edit needs to remain the same. Thnakyou. i havent removed anything but we gbians know our history, what your sources say is nothin, you click on the sources and it redirects back to the same page. Even UNPO website uses the same word unconditional attachment to pakistan. Have a look at this link as well. ^[1][2] Many other credible sources mention that we invited pakistan to take over not the other way around. ^{[3] [4] [5]}

Please refer to these sources .Saladin1987 04:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

These are sourced materials. We are from that region. you being an indian are taught that pakistan forcefully included us but thats not the truth, i have already notified the admin about this issue until he comes back with a reply, the edit needs to remain the same. Thnakyou. i havent removed anything but we gbians know our history, what your sources say is nothin, you click on the sources and it redirects back to the same page. Even UNPO website uses the same word unconditional attachment to pakistan. Have a look at this link as well. ^[6][7] Many other credible sources mention that we invited pakistan to take over not the other way around. ^{[8] [9] [10]}

Please refer to these sources .Saladin1987 04:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)