| Revision as of 20:17, 10 May 2018 editKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,846 edits →Slavery in India: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:52, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,014 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| | algo = old(15d) | | algo = old(15d) | ||
| | archive = User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive %(counter)d | | archive = User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 20 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | | maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 8 | | minthreadsleft = 8 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{DS/aware|ipa|muh-im|a-i}} | |||
| {{Archive box | {{Archive box | ||
| |auto=yes | |auto=yes | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
| |search=yes | |search=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!-- | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/ | |||
| |format= %%i | |||
| |age=2160 | |||
| |archivebox=no | |||
| |maxarchsize=80000 | |||
| |box-separator=no | |||
| |minkeepthreads=8 | |||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} --> | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| == Edit Request for Audrey truschke == | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Hi! I am proposing a new edit request for Audrey truschke. This edit will include an author named girish shahane who issued a critique of her work on aurangzeb. This seems like a legitimate edit since the review was published in a reputable indian news outlet called scroll in. | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 86375 --> ] (]) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| https://scroll.in/article/856178/aurangzeb-was-a-bigot-not-just-by-our-standards-but-by-those-of-his-predecessors-and-peers | |||
| == Stop censorship == | |||
| I really don't see why this can't be used as a valid critique even if the critique isn't is a historian. I'm just wondering why criticism has to come from only a historian for it to be valid. Can it not come from a reputable news outlet? Hope to hear from you thanks............... ] (]) 00:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If you don't like what I'm adding, don't censor it. Irfan Habib isn't talking about any Aryan invasion, but simply a migration which is the topic. So I fail to see your problem. | |||
| :Academic works get academic reviews, published in journals. They get a lot higher weightage than those published in news outlets. History is a very ancient subject dating back to Herodotus and Aristotle. There is a long tradition of how to assess historical data, which scholarly historians follow. Popular historians know nothing about it. -- ] (]) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If it's simply because of the interpretations about Dasas being dark-complexioned, you can add a contrary view. But you cannot pick and choose what to add or remove. It is unethical to only consider one reliable source as correct and censor another reliable source. | |||
| ::sir, I wish to connect with you about an topic, how and where can I do so? ] (]) 16:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello {{U|Virabukkaraya}}, welcome to Misplaced Pages! There is nothing called "connecting" with each other about a topic on Misplaced Pages. All editors are expected to edit independently. If you need any specific help with anything, you are welcome to ask me here on my talk page. Please start a new section on the talk page rather than extending an existing section. -- ] (]) 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, I am just unaware as to how a new section can be created. ] (]) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Season's Greetings == | |||
| As for taking a break, I will not be cowing down to your threats or letting you get away with what you want. Reliably sourced and relevant content should be added ] (]) 22:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;" | |||
| : Well, it seems that you are back to square-A. Your wish. Don't say that I didn't warn you. -- ] (]) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <blockquote>When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." </blockquote> | |||
| (Text on page 17 illustrated in the ] in ]'s ''Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers'', illustrated by ], London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) | |||
| ::You have been removing me over the similar things: The first - Aryan invasion, I already dropped it. The second - different color of Dasas/Dasyus. If you have contradictory opinions, you can add it. But it's clear, you are only removing content based on what you don't agree with. ] (]) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ]] 04:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Harappan, Vedic, Dravidian == | |||
| |} | |||
| : Thank you {{U|Fowler&fowler}}. What a lovely greeting! Happy holidays for you too! -- ] (]) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy holidays! == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Never realised that the late Harappans were kind of split-up; sites had moved north and south, due to aridisation. See p.4. and Narasimhan et al. (2018). So, which Harappans moved south and mixed with the hunter-gatherers to form the Dravidians? Quite obvious, isn't it? | |||
| ] -] 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Not really. If you are saying that Dravidian languages spread ''from the IVC'', then it would have had to happen while the IVC was still flourishing. After it died, there is hardly any reason for its language to spread, because it didn't just spread, it replaced whatever languages were spoken earlier in South India. For that to happen, there would have had to be strong cultural/technological reasons that gave the new language dominance. After the IVC died, there were no such reasons. | |||
| : My feeling is that the IVC-Dravidian connection is a red herring. I think the IVC people just stayed where they were and mixed with new people that came. They were a settled civilization, not nomads like the Aryans were. -- ] (]) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| :: p.14: | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| ::{{talkquote|the ASI and ANI were both largely unformed at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, and imply that the ASI may have formed in the course of the spread of West Asian domesticates into peninsular India beginning around 3000 BCE (where they were combined with local domesticates to form the basis of the early agriculturalist economy of South India (40)), or '''alternatively in association with eastward spread of material culture from the Indus Valley after the IVC declined''' (41). Further evidence for '''a Bronze Age formation of the ASI''' comes from our analysis of Austroasiatic-speaking groups in India such as Juang, who have a higher ratio of AASI-to-Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry than the ASI (Fig. 3, Supplementary Materials). Austroasiatic speakers likely descend from populations that arrived in South Asia in the 3 rd millennium BCE (based on hill cultivation systems associated with the spread of Austroasiatic languages (20)), and our genetic results show that when Austroasiatic speakers arrived they mixed with groups with elevated ratios of AASI- to Iranian-agriculturalist-related ancestry than are found in the ASI, showing that the ASI had not yet overspread peninsular India.}} | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Happy holidays!''' | |||
| ::And Razib Khan (january 18, 2018), : | |||
| |- | |||
| ::{{talkquote|The reason that the ratio of Iran_N to Steppe_EMBA does not decline monotonically as one goes from west to east along North Indian plain is that Indo-Aryans were not expanding into a Dravidian India. Dravidian India was expanding only somewhat ahead of Indo-Aryan India, and in some places not all at all.}} | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ ] (]) 10:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] -] 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::: Note that Narasimhan et al. are ambivalent about the linguistic connections: | |||
| : Thank you {{U|Jannatulbaqi}}. Happy holidays to you too! Let us hope that 2025 will be better than this year has been! -- ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{talkquote|A parsimonious hypothesis is that as Steppe_MLBA groups moved south and mixed with Indus_Periphery-related groups at the end of the IVC to form the ANI, other Indus_Periphery-related groups moved further south and east to mix with AASI groups in peninsular India to form the ASI. This is consistent with suggestions that the spread of the IVC was responsible for dispersing Dravidian languages (42-44), although '''scenarios in which Dravidian languages derive from pre-Indus languages of peninsular India are also entirely plausible''' as ASI ancestry is mostly derived from the AASI.}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ::: I don't doubt that agriculture spread from the IVC. The "tale of two continents" map shows it spreading between 3500 BC and 2000 BC. But this is an impressionistic map. The spreading is most likely to have happened by sea when the IVC was its peak and they had plenty of ships. The farmers would have settled in the coastal regions first and gradually spread inward. | |||
| ::: But the problem is in the assumption that this spreading carried with it a language which ''replaced'' the earlier language of South India. If that is so, then how would you explain isolated tribal Dravidian languages in the midst of Indo-Aryan regions? Why would the forest-dwelling tribes come down to learn the Dravidian language of the agriculturists, but then refuse to learn an Indo-Aryan language afterwards? A more reasonable hypothesis is that they were speaking Dravidian languages from the beginning (whatever the "beginning" might be). | |||
| ::: The agriculturists could have added a , as i mentioned earlier. I would hazard a guess that the ''anna'' language is what got added by the agriculturists (whom I call "Mesopotamians" rather than "Iranians") whereas the ''thambi'' language is the older one (a reasonable guess based on the fact that ''anna'' means elder brother and ''thambi'' means younger brother.) Moreover, this layering could have happened within the IVC itself, before it got carried to South India. All said and done, I guess I am claiming "indigeneous Dravidians". -- ] (]) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| And the recent says: | |||
| {{talkquote|We find the general congruence across models on a median root age for the Dravidian language family of around 4000–4500 years ago including similar 95% HDP ranges supportive of a positive evaluation of the dating results. Nevertheless, the uncertainty on the root age is large, especially for the best-fitting analyses featuring a relaxed clock. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the root of the Dravidian language family is 6000 or 6500 years old.}} | |||
| -- ] (]) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Have a look == | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Have a look at . Seems POV. Thanks. - ] (]) 12:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 86613 --> ] (]) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, it is ] and a pretty poor one too. -- ] (]) 12:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good faith reminder == | |||
| ::Have a look at changes. Apparently, the user is making a lot of POV changes as of late. I was notified that it is an SP. Regards. - ] (]) 11:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to ] while interacting with other editors. Unsubstantiated and spurious accusations like are to the detriment of this spirit. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> ] (]) 00:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Honestly, ]. -- ] (]) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding a concern == | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| As I see, there is an edit war going on with few pages, I wanted some help in regards to that. ] (]) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 86832 --> ] (]) 04:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :If your edits have been reverted, you should go to the article's talk page and write a message querying it. The people that revert edits are expected to explain their reasons. | |||
| == Today's chuckle == | |||
| :If they were not your edits, as a new user, you can stay away from the edit wars. Somebody more experienced will deal with them. -- ] (]) 18:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay thank you, it’s just that - I had done a study before on that particular personality, I have seen a lot of mistakes in the article but people are fighting only about one aspect - him being a king or a Raja, one writes Raja and another makes it into Zamindar when there is actual important factual information that is completely incorrect - unattended, which hints, these people don’t care about authenticity but only wars based on their agenda. ] (]) 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are welcome to make edits to the parts of the page that are not under dispute. Regarding the disputed parts, you can write your comments on the article's talk page, if you can contribute to those aspects. | |||
| :::In any case, which page is it that you are talking about? -- ] (]) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you, I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Vasireddy_Venkatadri_Nayudu ] (]) 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't see any edit wars going on, or at least not visibly. Please feel free to edit it. I will put it on my watch list too. -- ] (]) 20:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Its mostly the Raja being switched with Zamindar / King back and forth, I am writing notes with sources to start writing for many things including this, I shall re write the entire thing, but I would request you to somehow get it locked so people don't use it for the own purposes. ] (]) 20:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| -- ] (]) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Fascinating. ] (]) 04:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, that sock is WP:DUCK. ] (]) 16:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| == Fatima Sheikh == | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 87020 --> ] (]) 04:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Hello @], I hope this message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention the need to avoid incorporating current affairs related topics to certain India based articles. Given the frequency of controversies in India, we should refrain from overwhelming our content with a 'Controversy' section based solely on individuals' remarks. I hope this helps. Thank you.-] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Yeah, I agree. The controversy was a bit oversized when I came to the topic. It later fizzled out after enough sources were discovered. I am glad for it to be gone. :-) -- ] (]) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Slavery in India}} | |||
| ::Thanks for understanding mate!-] <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Inclusion of Insurgency Information == | |||
| Hello Kautilya3. Recently , where ] applied two days of semiprotection. Since I see your name in the history, I wonder if you have an opinion on what to do. There is some kind of revert war about , which goes back and forth. Do you think the article would benefit from an ]? Then we would at least know what the fight was about :-). Thanks, ] (]) 20:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi {{U|EdJohnston}}, all that content was only recently added by a POV-pushing editor that got blocked as a sock. There is no harm if it goes. I intend to work on the article during the summer, and, if anything can be salvaged from his content, I will. Meanwhile, any registered user can reinstate it and take ownership, as per policy. But they need to know the sources and they need to be available to answer questions when they come up. Cheers, ] (]) 20:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| See dude, I do not wish to go on an edit war with you over one article. The only suggestion I had initially was to not discuss insurgency in a page about a separate organisation as much as it goes against the guidelines of ] and ]. However if you feel otherwise kindly carry on. I shall work on other pages trying to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To prevent ] it could have been condensed to: | |||
| :The term "Western Southeast Asia" (Wesea) is sometimes used to refer to Northeast India, including by some insurgent groups such as the UNLFW, formed in 2015. 🤷♂️ it isn’t necessary or fruitful to mention each and every organisation that ever existed in this planet using that nomenclature ] (]) 03:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it will be best for you to move on. It appears that you are strongly attached to the subject, and are unable to deal with it neutrally. -- ] (]) 07:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::All my edits have been neutral and I’m not strongly attached to the subject. Perhaps you gotta consider your own POV too. But anyways, whatever I have contribute to the article is done. ] (]) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:52, 15 January 2025
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Edit Request for Audrey truschke
Hi! I am proposing a new edit request for Audrey truschke. This edit will include an author named girish shahane who issued a critique of her work on aurangzeb. This seems like a legitimate edit since the review was published in a reputable indian news outlet called scroll in.
I really don't see why this can't be used as a valid critique even if the critique isn't is a historian. I'm just wondering why criticism has to come from only a historian for it to be valid. Can it not come from a reputable news outlet? Hope to hear from you thanks............... Ker3243 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Academic works get academic reviews, published in journals. They get a lot higher weightage than those published in news outlets. History is a very ancient subject dating back to Herodotus and Aristotle. There is a long tradition of how to assess historical data, which scholarly historians follow. Popular historians know nothing about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- sir, I wish to connect with you about an topic, how and where can I do so? Virabukkaraya (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Virabukkaraya, welcome to Misplaced Pages! There is nothing called "connecting" with each other about a topic on Misplaced Pages. All editors are expected to edit independently. If you need any specific help with anything, you are welcome to ask me here on my talk page. Please start a new section on the talk page rather than extending an existing section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I am just unaware as to how a new section can be created. Virabukkaraya (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Virabukkaraya, welcome to Misplaced Pages! There is nothing called "connecting" with each other about a topic on Misplaced Pages. All editors are expected to edit independently. If you need any specific help with anything, you are welcome to ask me here on my talk page. Please start a new section on the talk page rather than extending an existing section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- sir, I wish to connect with you about an topic, how and where can I do so? Virabukkaraya (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
|
Season's Greetings | |
(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) |
- Thank you Fowler&fowler. What a lovely greeting! Happy holidays for you too! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
|
Happy holidays! |
| Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you Jannatulbaqi. Happy holidays to you too! Let us hope that 2025 will be better than this year has been! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Have a look
Have a look at these changes. Seems POV. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is WP:OR and a pretty poor one too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at these changes. Apparently, the user is making a lot of POV changes as of late. I was notified that it is an SP. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding a concern
As I see, there is an edit war going on with few pages, I wanted some help in regards to that. Virabukkaraya (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If your edits have been reverted, you should go to the article's talk page and write a message querying it. The people that revert edits are expected to explain their reasons.
- If they were not your edits, as a new user, you can stay away from the edit wars. Somebody more experienced will deal with them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thank you, it’s just that - I had done a study before on that particular personality, I have seen a lot of mistakes in the article but people are fighting only about one aspect - him being a king or a Raja, one writes Raja and another makes it into Zamindar when there is actual important factual information that is completely incorrect - unattended, which hints, these people don’t care about authenticity but only wars based on their agenda. Virabukkaraya (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are welcome to make edits to the parts of the page that are not under dispute. Regarding the disputed parts, you can write your comments on the article's talk page, if you can contribute to those aspects.
- In any case, which page is it that you are talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Vasireddy_Venkatadri_Nayudu Virabukkaraya (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any edit wars going on, or at least not visibly. Please feel free to edit it. I will put it on my watch list too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its mostly the Raja being switched with Zamindar / King back and forth, I am writing notes with sources to start writing for many things including this, I shall re write the entire thing, but I would request you to somehow get it locked so people don't use it for the own purposes. Virabukkaraya (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any edit wars going on, or at least not visibly. Please feel free to edit it. I will put it on my watch list too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Vasireddy_Venkatadri_Nayudu Virabukkaraya (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thank you, it’s just that - I had done a study before on that particular personality, I have seen a lot of mistakes in the article but people are fighting only about one aspect - him being a king or a Raja, one writes Raja and another makes it into Zamindar when there is actual important factual information that is completely incorrect - unattended, which hints, these people don’t care about authenticity but only wars based on their agenda. Virabukkaraya (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Your message
Yes, that sock is WP:DUCK. Chaipau (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Fatima Sheikh
Hello @Kautilya3, I hope this message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention the need to avoid incorporating current affairs related topics to certain India based articles. Given the frequency of controversies in India, we should refrain from overwhelming our content with a 'Controversy' section based solely on individuals' remarks. I hope this helps. Thank you.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. The controversy was a bit oversized when I came to the topic. It later fizzled out after enough sources were discovered. I am glad for it to be gone. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding mate!-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 12:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Inclusion of Insurgency Information
See dude, I do not wish to go on an edit war with you over one article. The only suggestion I had initially was to not discuss insurgency in a page about a separate organisation as much as it goes against the guidelines of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. However if you feel otherwise kindly carry on. I shall work on other pages trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- To prevent WP:UNDUE it could have been condensed to:
- The term "Western Southeast Asia" (Wesea) is sometimes used to refer to Northeast India, including by some insurgent groups such as the UNLFW, formed in 2015. 🤷♂️ it isn’t necessary or fruitful to mention each and every organisation that ever existed in this planet using that nomenclature Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be best for you to move on. It appears that you are strongly attached to the subject, and are unable to deal with it neutrally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All my edits have been neutral and I’m not strongly attached to the subject. Perhaps you gotta consider your own POV too. But anyways, whatever I have contribute to the article is done. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be best for you to move on. It appears that you are strongly attached to the subject, and are unable to deal with it neutrally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)