(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Jump to content

User talk:Kautilya3: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 3) (bot
Xinjao (talk | contribs)
Line 129: Line 129:


The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)#rfc_49F9C42|this request for comment on '''Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 37122 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)#rfc_49F9C42|this request for comment on '''Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 37122 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

== Please refrain from vandalizing the Pakistan article. This is not an Indian POV site. ==

Dear User. Please stop vandalizing the article. Your edits are ridiculous. The Area of Pakistan should reflect Pakistani held Kashmir since Pakistan controls these parts. The 881 figure includes Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Nobody cares that you as an Indian dont agree with this. You didnt even bother to change the area in Miles sq, which also includes Pakistani Kashmir. Please refrain from political edit warring. --[[User:Xinjao|Xinjao]] ([[User talk:Xinjao|talk]]) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:54, 9 December 2015

Yet another bombshell in the India-Pakistan space

Who would have thought that Mar4d was a sock! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, another one! Didn't expect that either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic lions

On Chinese guardian lions page, theres images of Ashoka emblem and other lion sculpture from India which i'm pretty sure are unrelated to chinese guradian lions, should it be removed? 59.93.78.181 (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a note on the article talk page. If nobody responds in a couple of days, please feel free to remove all foreign references. Mention "Deleting unsourced content" or some such as the edit summary. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali

Hello Kautilya3, could you please add this to the Diwali page? It should be added to the Australia section of the page. This is what it is:

On the Australian external territory of Christmas Island, Deepavali is a celebrated annual holiday alongside many other celebrations common in Australia, Malaysia as well as local celebrations of the island.[1][2]

The original users I had asked to add it in seem to have ignored me as they never replied to any of my messages. Could you please add it in? Thank you (121.220.85.127 (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

References

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satish Chandra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R. S. Sharma (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) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Azov Battalion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Azov Battalion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity

I've come across a great recent essay on pre-Islamic Arabia in this volume, written by a specialist of archaeology and synthesizing various sources, which I'm currently in the process of mining for more detail. I'm assuming that you've seen my reply in Talk and decided against moving back the Hawting passage, so I've integrated it in the added discussion. (This is msubotin, having moved to a new account) Eperoton (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eperoton, It looks good. Amazing source! I am happy with Hawting being integrated into the new discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity?

Hey Kautilya3

Don't you think this user, called Vormeph and that other strange dude we communicated both with recently, Triptoeminefield, are remarkebly similar in the way that they edit a wide array of articles, make tons of unliked/unsourced changes, and are usually in disputes with users, and collect a lot of warnings? Look at their edit summaries and talk pages, might you have the time; looks awfully similar, IMHO.

Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about the topics to tell the similarity. But, yes, the practice of contesting and deleting content seems similar. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Just fyi, AP once alerted Maunus (of all people) about ARBIPA, and was also notified himself by Darkness shines under his previous username (which I don't want to link here, but easily found at WP:ARBIPA, so he is well aware of the sanctions, and can be sanctioned for behavior prior to your notification). Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quote

Hello, Indian-Subcontinent and Central Asia makes it easier to understand rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan, it's already stated in the study above and in the quote itself. I have only simplified it for easier understanding. 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.72.213 (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately, you can't do that. Direct quotes are sacrosanct. Even adding emphasis is not allowed. You can add wikilinks without changing the text, but some readers have complained that even that distracts from the actual quote. (Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you open a discussion, you need to wait for consensus before redoing the edit. Otherwise you would be WP:edit warring.- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. Regarding quote, it would be a better to unquote it then and simplify the study for better understanding as they moved into what is now Afghanistan & Pakistan as well, so having Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia (as mentioned in the study) would be a better idea. 59.93.72.213 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One can always remove a quote and paraphrase it, provided the other editors of the page think it is acceptable. But still one cannot modify the meaning of the text. If the text is talking about India, and you change it to Indian subcontinent, it would amount to original research. I don't think the discussion in the article is great. But, genetics literature is remarkably hard to understand, and the specialists who can write about it are quite limited. Your best is to raise a question on the article talk page along the lines of "why is a quote about solely India being included while the article is about South Asia?" or something like that. Somebody knowledgeable about the subject might pay attention to it. You don't have to edit every article yourself just because you are allowed to. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, I will make a post about this topic on article talk-page. There will be no change in meaning of the text, just Indian subcontinent and Central Asia would be added to simplify it (as also mentioned in the source). 117.192.217.67 (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your IP address is constantly changing. This is no good for discussions because we have no idea who we are speaking to. If you want to make long-term edits, it is better to create an an account.
"Indian subcontinent" and "Central Asia" cannot be added because they misrepresent the source. We have already been through this before. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant by removing quote and paraphrase the sentence which is already given in the source as migration from Central Asia and into Indian Subcontient (Afghan, Pak, India and Nepal). There is no misrepresentation of source here, it's only being simplified. Mywikicommons (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That paraphrase misrepresents the source, as I have already said multiple times. So, no you can't do that.
If you want to talk about the migration into the "Indian subcontinent," this source is no good. You need to find some other source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. Mywikicommons (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM Request

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Philosophy

Hello, regarding the Philosophy on Indian people page, see the Italians, Germans, and French people page for example has section dedicated to philosophy, covers all importance aspects that shaped their respective culture. We should add it, philosophy has been important part of Indian civilization. We should also furtherer add information about Indian political philosophy in 20th century such as Gandhian socialism, Practical idealism, Integral humanism (India), Nehruism, Trusteeship (Gandhism) it will be simple information on basics. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about these edits to Indian people? If other people pages discuss philosophy, it does not immediately imply that we should too. It depends on various factors. For one, Indian philosophy is mostly religious. So it could be covered under religion to the extent necessary. The more serious problem is that the text you added is entirely opaque. It mentions a whole bunch of Sanskrit technical terms and history dating back to the 6th century BC without actually conveying anything. If one wants to add Philosophy in this page, a much more high-level and understandable description of it should be written. In any case, this discussion should happen on the article's talk page, not here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indian philosophy also includes political philosophy we can have three small paragraphs, two for philosophical schools that shaped Indian religious thought and one for 20th century contemporary and political philosophy such as Gandhian Socialism and Integral humanism and Nehruism for example. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that various Sramanaic philosophy were not religious in nature, for example Atotmism of Pakudha Kaccayana or Ajita Kesakambalis Matrialiam. It is important that we have a small, simplified philosophical section. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Indo-Aryan migration theory. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and have the same opinion K. You should not revert others blindly and force them to talk page when (reliable sources are given and policies followed) you can intiate the discussion yourself too! --AmritasyaPutraT 05:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AP, of course you think have the same opinion; stop making trolling comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I am not trolling. I made my comment in all seriousness and expect that it be considered so. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. I know your intentions are good. But maybe, sometimes, they're just not very helpfull. It would be more helpfull if you try to calm down the two of these valued editors, who can spent their time better than with templating each other. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vic was just letting off some steam. Let it go, people. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics

Do you think that Bharat Ratna is not honourable enough to be mentioned? Then, I would suggest you to read WP:HONORIFICS again. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned, but not in the way you are doing. Bharat Ratna is not a title. Even if it was title WP:HONORIFICS doesn't allow one to put such titles as if they were the part of a name. If you want to contest it, you can raise it on [{WP:INB]] notice board. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from vandalizing the Pakistan article. This is not an Indian POV site.

Dear User. Please stop vandalizing the article. Your edits are ridiculous. The Area of Pakistan should reflect Pakistani held Kashmir since Pakistan controls these parts. The 881 figure includes Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Nobody cares that you as an Indian dont agree with this. You didnt even bother to change the area in Miles sq, which also includes Pakistani Kashmir. Please refrain from political edit warring. --Xinjao (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]