User talk:Kautilya3
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
New article
Kautilya3, I believe you are the right person to ask as you are experienced. Please create an article with the title, "Minority appeasement in India". There are many things happening and this is just one instance.
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jurat on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dictator on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Rajasthan
Shouldn't the first deletion discussion be at Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India? Looks like someone did a copy paste move. Is Battle of Kangra also a part of the same campaign? --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi RP, we already discussed it before renaming the page. There should have been a redirect left around under the old title. I don't know what happened to it.
- Battle of Kangra is unrelated, even though that seems to be an equally bad page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah. I see that Utcursch didn't leave a redirect behind when he moved it. BTW, nice picture above. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
reverting on talk pages
I don't know if you are aware, but reverting posts to talk pages is an infringement of wiki policy. I realise that you are a fairly new user, but 7 years is surely enough. Anyway, I suggest you check this out with a view to avoiding future infringements. Achar Sva (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
Your recent editing history at Xaidulla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
A slow-motion edit war is still and WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Toddst1, thanks for finding all those old socks and listing them! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've also requested page protection as that editor was blocked 11 years ago! but the infinitely wise have declined my request. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Rajput resistance
Hii Mr. Kautliya, Since you are an expert in history, Can you please take a look at Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests article and fix some puffery and mistakes in recent addition.2402:8100:2169:D2C0:9ADC:D2C7:96DB:662F (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I notice Alivardi is watching the page. Perhaps LukeEmily might be interested too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry Kautilya3 and IP. I do not know much about this topic. My interest lies mostly in Sanskritization and its effect on women and children as it relates to castes.LukeEmily (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: No problem, puffery is already sorted out by White Horserider, you just need to fix the lead of article and make it more nuanced as per content in body of article.
AfC: Khanahr village, Himachal
I've submitted an article for review. Could you review it or help get it reviewed soon? Thanks. --Tagooty (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is reviewed and published, thanks. --Tagooty (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Voice of India has been nominated for deletion
Category:Voice of India has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Adam's Bridge article title name change to Ram Setu or If you can't do that than change name of the article title to Ram Setu/Adam's Bridge which is the same name as given by international google map to stay neutral, The current wikipedia article title is not neutral at all and must be removed immediately
Hello, Kautilya3. I request you to change the title of the wikipedia page Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu. Both India and Srilanka call it Ram Setu only the outsiders i.e the foreign countries call it the Adam's bridge. How can foreginers name be in title when the bridge squarely falls in India and Srilanka's territory. Its like for a hypothetical example suppose all foreginers can call the capital of India Queen city without calling it Delhi. Ofcourse we would not put that name Queen city in title, We will only put the name Delhi in title because the power of naming the title name "or naming the territory under International Law" squarely falls in the hand of the country who own's the territory. And Queen city name will be put in the wikipedia page in it's first sentence by putting words of "also known as" because most foreigners know it with that name. So do you understand why is it important to put Ram Setu as the title and Adam's bridge "as also known as part in the first sentence of that wikipedia page"... Hopefully you change the title as soon as possible, it is related to the soveregin rights of Srilanka and India as independent countries to name the territory under international law, how can some foreigner name be in the title when the two countries who mutually hold the territory and the territory squarely falls under the two countries mutual jurisdication/control and they both mutually agree with the name and call it Ram Setu. and you can put the other names like Adam's bridge, Rama's bridge and Rama Setu in the also known as part in the first sentence of that wikipedia page.. Humble request to you! Swtadi143 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Here are multiple well known Indian newspapers websites and news broadcasters like Hindustantimes and Quint calling it Ram Setu and the international Google map also call's that bridge Ram Setu, I know the International google map call's it Ram Setu because I am from Nepal and My google map is showing the bridge's name as Ram Setu/Adam's Bridge. Also since there is already a hindu temple called Rama Setu just near the bridge as you can see from your google map you cannot name the bridge as Rama setu that is why the Indian government names it as Ram Setu removing the letter "a" from the word "Rama" and that is confirmed and accepted google by showing the name in the international google map to its international viewers by the name Ram Setu. So please the change the article title page name from Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu as soon as possible and I am waiting for your response hope you reply here. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ram-setu-a-man-made-structure-or-natural-ichr-to-explore/story-T9AtcmeKTvM6HVmIT5ulMO.html
If suppose you cant change the name entirely than put the neutral name like Ram Setu/Adam's Bridge as article title name of the wikipedia page which is the same name used in the international google map which shows the bridge's name as Ram Setu/Adam's bridge. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs)
- This has been discussed on the article's talk page many times. The page title is chosen as per Wikipedia policy of using the predominant name in the English language sources. Why does matter so much anyway? Nobody is denying that it is called "Rama Setu" by the Indians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Ganwapi mosque issue
The edit I did was just that I added a "alleged" there. Because there is only one source which take about the destruction by aurangzeb. And even that is challenged by modern Historians. And there are many contrary and logical arguments against it. In view of all this I just added that it is alleged Mohammed aquib k (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)