User talk:Kautilya3

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate: Covert Action and Internal Operations

Heya, any interest in writing an article on the book? I found a few reviews altho I only have access to 2, 3 and 5.

References

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. The thought never occurred to me. If only the Modi Sarkar gives us any respite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't jinx it, damn you (looks aggressively biting nails for latest sarkari khabar) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

DaxServer, accepting responsibility for this :-( -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh.. it's just a couple of days into the month... 😵‍💫 Someone's in a hurry. 12 more months, eh? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The foot

	The foot
	It's sometimes handy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw, viewership is spiking a little [1], probably not just editors. More media coverage soon, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Sri Ram Navami time. [2] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh, so it is. WP, you always learn something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean that the Ram Bhakts are reading that page! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have an uneasy feeling that in this context, Takbir will become the target of "retaliatory" editing sooner or later. The latest one has gone unnoticed since Jan 2023. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Context of previous discussion

I pinged you for requesting inputs @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines since I remembered discussion @ Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 3#The High Court proceedings

• (and not Talk:Rahul Gandhi - there I made a mention since editors seemed unaware of MOS:LEGAL guideline -personally I find that guideline sensible and helpful enough - the rest I am not keen on getting involved in content disputes @ Talk:Rahul Gandhi )

Bookku (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bookku, yes, I saw that you pinged me from the MOS talk page, and I have been monitoring it. MOS is only a guide to the writing style, it is not for creating policy. For creating policy regarding RS, probably the best place to start is WP:RSN.

You want to make proposals for what kind of sources should be used for legal subjects etc., for which I don't have much of an opinion to offer.

Regading the issue of legal sources versus general/political sources, I think topics such as the Rahul Gandhi case right now, or the Shah Bano case ages ago, have both legal and political strands. And both kinds of sources may be necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your above inputs.

As such I started discussion @ MOS/legal since it already contained a guide line. For discussion on legal aspects it's usually beneficial if one is already informed or exposed to legal terminologies. But you do have a point that RSN should get involved and may be after having initial discussions @ MOS/legal we can take RFC to RSN general audience whether that would be ok or that shall have a constraint of avoid forum shop? Bookku (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor point

Hey, this edit confused the sources a little. The 2002 part of that statement wasn't Matusitz. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

With the 'initial few years' phrasing, it's a little confusing - initial few years from when? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Biased Topic headings

I was wondering what the justification for reverting the recent edit FROM "Controversies" which is neutral TO the decidedly non-neutral "Attacks on academic freedom" on the Hindu American Foundation Wiki page. Clearly, the organization (for whom the page was created) do not view their efforts as "attacking" academic freedom and a more balanced and nuanced appraisal would seem more aligned with Wiki's attempt at neutrality. 2A0D:6FC2:45B0:F200:B4D2:AC86:D7C2:686D (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Section titles like "Controversies" are not welcomed on Wikipedia (even though I admit that many low-traffic pages have them.) See WP:CRIT.

What the "organisation" thinks about any of this entirely irrelevant because Wikipedia is written based on WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

clearly my point is not what the organization thinks, it is that "attacks" in a section heading represents a very clear POV while supporters of the organization have a strong counter point of view also supported by third party reliable sources and that Wiki headings should aim for neutrality and that the items under the heading should either be under the existing Activism heading (which is neutral) or the first two items can be under a Litigation heading which is also neutral and doesn't express a particular ideological viewpoint 2A0D:6FC2:45B0:F200:B4D2:AC86:D7C2:686D (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alastair Lamb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Labh Singh

Hello. I am wondering why you removed my changes from the Labh Singh article. You said the source is unreliable but I am wondering what makes it unreliable?

Regards CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi CanadianSingh1469, sorry for the delay. Please read carefully WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In contentious subjects, the standards tend to be higher than normal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know if the article would he considered contentious, but it still seems the source is reliable. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I think the source meets the standards. Could you please tell me a reason for why the source may not meet the standards. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. You need to tell us who the author and publisher are, and what credentials they have for being reliable. It is best done on the article talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to linke WP:SOURCEDEF in my previous message, not SOURCETYPES. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Having read through I still think the source I used is reliable and should be used. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The policy states These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. So, please open a thread on the talk page with your evidence. We may need to invite WP:RSN to take a look at too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I have added a discussed at the Talk:Labh Singh page. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you review these articles

I appreciate your interest in Indian history and your positive input about the article on the Turquoise throne. In your free time can you review these articles created and edited by me? They are Yanaon, Rajamundry Sarkar, and Sawanih-i-Deccan. Thank you, Kautilya. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, interesting subjects! I will look at them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do?

Someone with a bunch of IP (1st, 2, 3) has cropped up out of the woodworks with a bone to pick with me. Multiple instances of incompetent editing on several pages with the specific purpose of ‘righting the wrongs’ they claim are being done by me (e.g. see the edit histories of this and this; here they add a bunch of stuff blatantly copied from multiple different wikipedia pages that deal with general violence instead of the specific one the article is about). Also on more than one occasion they have tried to accuse me of serious misconduct in completely unrelated talk pages (1, 2). Any idea what recourse is available to me, if any? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You could have just addressed me directly instead of attempting to get support here I have no bone to pick with you but I know biased editing when I see it. Also you are after all the person who wanted to white wash and hide the Amritsar Massacre of Muslims by trying to delete it so I am aware that you come here with a clear Anti Muslim bias as we have seen on multiple articles like Dhaka where you bulldozed your way in with pov materials. I have removed unrelated general violence in the main article here [3] and no it was not copied from multiple different wikipedia pages thats another lie. Also your bias was clear when you tried to push the idea that violence against women started in Rawalpindi and added it to the lead of the article while sources which are reliable state it happened before you also made it clear that specifically Punjab more Muslims were abducted when thats clearly original research and not in the source further to this I wrote the same for Rawalpindi as a result. You then falsely accused me of using unreliable sources when the sources I have used are already present in the main article I just moved them around to more appropriate sections as it is clear you are trying to downplay the murder of Muslims and over emphasis the loss of Sikhs and Hindus like you did when attempting to delete Amritsar Massacre. I will not keep engaging in edit wars with you but bare in mind your actions have been noted to be biased and you will keep getting yourself into problems if you continue with your clearly one sided eits. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:8CF:CAB1:C2D1:B44E (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Heres another example of the severely skewed and distorted edits made on that article "Violence was also perpetrated on an organized basis, with Pathans taking Hindu and Sikh women from refugee trains while one accused that he witnessed armed Sikhs periodically dragging Muslim women" what do you mean "accussed" the full sentence from Scholar Major Andrews stated this "Violence was also perpetrated on an organized basis, with local men taking Hindu and Sikh women from refugee trains while one observer witnessed armed Sikhs periodically dragging Muslim women from their refugee column and killing any men who resisted, while the military sepoys guarding the columns did nothing." So in the led this full sentence was cut and shamelessly distorted to down play the action of Sikhs and over exaggerate what Muslim Pathans did...this is the type of editing synonymous with the toxic religious nationalism prevalent in India today. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:8CF:CAB1:C2D1:B44E (talk)