User talk:Kautilya3

Archives

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

What’s wrong with you?

Why did you revert other users comment on article talk page? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1286421217 — Cerium4B —Talk? • 07:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM, the guidance given in your warning message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is okay with my reply. Restore my comment. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 05:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to rephrase it in a way that relates to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s already related to that comment. I mentioned a news related to Bhabesh then described why we’ll not add that news on that article. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 05:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Azov Brigade 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 12:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Kakatiya dynasty

Hi Kautilya, hope you’re doing well.

A new user has recently added content to the Kakatiya dynasty article using this source from the MCRHRDI website. I’m a bit uncertain about its reliability under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines. Since inscriptions are typically considered primary sources, they’re generally discouraged unless accompanied by scholarly interpretation. However, this material seems to include some commentary on the inscriptions, which makes it unclear whether the document should be treated as a primary or secondary source.

Could you please take a look and share your opinion on whether this qualifies as a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia purposes? Thanks in advance! Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pahalgam attack

Hi Kautilya, hope all is well with you. Nice to see our paths cross once again. I made few edits in the 2025 Pahalgam attack page and would seek your help in improving the quality of this edits. For example, I have made an edit about reactions in Kashmir but there were issues raised by other editors about original research and unreliable source. I would appreciate if you can do something about it. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bsskchaitanya, I had put the Original Research template on that section last night. I suggest you reduce the excessive citations to start with, and then rephrase sentences in accordance with what the sources say. There is no need to have 6 or 7 citations for single sentences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to this discussion

https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-probe-agencies-indentify-fifteen-local-kashmiris-who-helped-terrorists/amp_articleshow/120662335.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/15-local-cadres-helped-pahalgam-attackers-probe/articleshow/120655474.cms 2409:40C1:1:7820:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 For God's sake, please stop acting like an authority on what is considered Islamist terrorism, what is Hindutva, and what constitutes 'normal' Muslim militancy. People were not killed because they were non-Kashmiri—they were killed because they were non-Muslim. Muslim non-Kashmiris were spared. Even an African Muslim would have been spared. The fear of demographic change is itself rooted in religion. Recite the Kalma, and they will accept you with open arms and legs, no matter where you are from (unless racism runs deep). This mindset and the actions associated with it stem from Islamic theology. If you don’t know much about it, it’s better not to act unnecessarily smart everywhere. This is the very prototype of Islamic terrorism. I wonder what world you live in. And RS is not obliged to explain why it called a terrorist attack 'Islamic terrorism,' especially when it’s a given.

Also, it doesn’t matter if an organization is X but calls itself Y. Even the settler colonialism narrative can’t gain as much traction here as in the Israel-Gaza case, because this is essentially the same race versus the same race, divided by religion—unless 'settler colonialism' here is being used as a subtle implication of Hindu colonialism. 2409:40C1:56:2EF1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 After analyzing the discussions on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict pages, some things are becoming clearer and clearer. I have dealt with at least four editors with a pro-Pakistan point of view on that talk page in the past. But i have dealt with them on Hinduism-related pages, whether it's about some verses in the Vedas, pushing the "Hindutva as fascism" narrative, demonizing the Ram Mandir, whitewashing serious crimes by Indian Muslims, or relentlessly glorifying the Indian National Congress etc.

I've lost count of how many times I've had to intervene, fight alone and correct pages. It's not unbelievable, but it is deeply concerning how these individuals are motivated, alert, and outnumber people like me by at least 10 to 1. I used to think they were Indian Muslims or atleast marxists, and I genuinely tried to understand their point of view—what serious issues might drive them to push such narratives.

But after seeing their stance on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict, I’m shocked. I sincerely hope I’m wrong and that they are actually Pakistanis. Because if not, this is seriously concerning.

You are doing good work. Never been prouder-Fair and balanced. 2409:40C1:1B:6A98:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some reminders on how WP:BRD works

Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to WP:PRESERVE some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. Partial reversion, WP:PARTR, is better than complete reversion. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement. The "WP:Bold-refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative editing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".
Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.
In the edit summary of your revert, briefly explain why you reverted. You can encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.

Do you mind explaining how your edit followed these guidelines? You're not a petty-king of the article. Making a revert and labelling the edit as a "narrative" is hostile behavior. To quote from above: "A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did." I do not know exactly what you want to discuss about my "narrative" or what "evidence" you want me to bring up. If you have a problem, you can bring up your problem on the talk page.

Furthermore: "[Before reverting] be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit". So if you cannot express a disagreement with the content of my edit, then it is an invalid revert.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedious1, I am afraid you got it backwards. It was your content that you reinstated. The edit notice on the page says You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. Did you discuss it before reinstating? I suggest you self-revert. Otherwise, you are going to get cited for violation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Explorers of Ayodhya has been nominated for deletion

Category:Explorers of Ayodhya has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Update

Thanks and Regards, Chandan Ck17840 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ecrusized_and_unilateral_changes Soni (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute Resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Dispute Resolution noticeboard, at this thread. Thanks. Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, the entire "Background" section, especially the paragraph about "settler colonialism" is clearly WP:SYNTH. I don't see how any of those sources have anything to do with the Pahalgam attack. It is improper editorial synthesis constituting original research. I couldn't find any article covering the attacks tying the cause or the background to "colonialism". Rackaballa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Settler Colonialism? talk page discussion Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SYNTH when that point is almost verbatim stated by several sources. Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]