Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 14 May 2016

Archives

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

Suggestion & Request

Revolving around Akshant Kautilya Sharma, this story is an alarm for the Indian nation's authorities to rise before two major problems, namely misoriented youth and the caste-based reservation system take India to the depths of darkness. I also request that an article about the same be written if you consider it fit. It is somewhat popular on Facebook with a cult following for itself on its Facebook page.. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

References

1. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYY0DMA
2. https://www.facebook.com/7SecondsAKS/

do not edit others comments

Don't strike comments made by other editors. It is basic wiki etiquette, read about it at WP:TPO. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict restrictions

Please see Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Editing_Restrictions --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh genocide

• 1971 Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your name appears in Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped where you stated that the RfC was premature. If you have knowledge of the dispute about this article, perhaps you feel like commenting on a current WP:AE request that concerns it. I put the article under two weeks of full protection but am not optimistic that it will cure the problem. Issuing page bans to one or more people is something that could still be tried, it it's likely to help solve the dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Indeed the article has been on my watch list for a long time, along with most other South Asian dispute articles. I am mostly an observer rather than a participant. This particular page has difficult issues, with claims and counterclaims by Bangladesh and Pakistan nationalists. There is some indication that the traditional accounts may be faulty, but the truth is not yet known and difficult to get hold of. Given the difficulty of the subject, an honest and focused debate needs to happen. The discussion is made more difficult by some editors who have no interest in content creation but only participate on talk pages, often inflaming the debates. They also do reverts, defeating the consensus-building. Freeatlast is one of them, but not the only one. I think admins can help by checking this free-wheeling behaviour. RegentsPark has recently made a start on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Similar restrictions can be placed on all the 1971 Bangladesh articles (and there are a lot of them).

It will also be useful if we allow uninvolved editors to strike posts and comments that are not in accordance with talk page guidelines. I recently did that with a discussion on Talk:Kashmir conflict, and it was quite revealing to see how much space and energy is taken up by nationalistic posturing, throwing discussions off track. I was an involved editor there. So I could do nothing when Freeatlast reverted the strike-off. But, why can't uninvolved editors do that kind of thing to keep the discussions focused?

I will try to write a comment at the WP:AE page, but I think the problem is broader than the conduct of a single editor. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You yourself claim that you are a mere observer and not a participant, but you have taken all the liberty in fully participating at the talk-pages while influencing the consensus building process. However, you consider that when editors (like yourself who are observers and not participants - per you statement above) who do not create content and only participate at talk are at fault?! Self-defeating isnt it? Last time I checked, here at wikipeida it was preferred to participate at talks instead of fighting it out read edit-warring at the main-space, no?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   22:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the key parts in what I wrote: often inflaming debates. They also do reverts, defeating the consensus-building. If you believe that I have done such activity, please feel free to take me to WP:AE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav, you may be blocked from editing. I have been telling you about this for a while now. Please read WP:TPO it details all the guidelines as to what you can, and cannot do with comments made by other editors FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the policies that you keep citing, for instance, If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This was the third time you did this, and I see that you have reverted me as well. I have given you fair warning, the next time you do this, you will be reported. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you report me now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And I suggest that you take a deep breath and stop this kind of disruption. This time you have been warned, next time you will be reported, don't worry about that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a deep breath? I thought that was a snide remark? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But, seriously, I am asking you to take this to WP:ANI right now. No need to wait for a "next time." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In a debate it is a snide remark, but when an editor is being warned as your are being warned right now and he continues to argue that he will continue to do the same and says that, go on! report me! Then such a remark is not out of place. As I stated earlier, you should pay attention to context. See, here we have two very different contexts and therefore two different situations. As I said earlier as per the rules an editor is warned first, the if he/she continues to disrupt then he/she is reported. I warned you today, if you continue to disrupt i will report you. till then, Cheers. To be frank I have seen that warnings work wonders. I most recently warned you not to canvass Ghatus, you raised hue and cry but the warning worked quite well and you have refrained from pinging him to discussions. So when warnings are working , why should we waste time at ANI? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You live in an imaginary world my friend. When I believe I have made a mistake, I will admit it and apologise. I don't need any warnings. You can take me to any forum any time. Now, please stop posting here and pinging me every second. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Brahminsm vs Historical religion article

Hi User, Thanks for sharing your view points on the article Brahminsm. Actually I am working on the same project in my university and I like to add the same topic to[REDACTED] also.Please help me by giving your valuable suggestions. Your view points are always welcomed.We can disscuss about the topic on the talk page of the article.--IrumudiChozhan (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Objection for deleting or modifying or merging Brahminsm article

Brahminsm is a seperate topic related to the influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion. There are so many references are available throughout India.Aryans (Brahmins) are seperate race migrated to India around 1500 BCE through Khyber and Bholan pass.They invaded India and they influenced the religion of native people and created castes and divisions through religious texts.Even they deviced penal codes in which different punishments are available for the same crime based on caste.The mahabharatha incident ekalaiva and karna are true and can be verified.Even many reformists in India tried to reform Hinduism and tried to reduce the influence of Aryans on Hinduism. I dont have much experience in editing[REDACTED] article.So I am not able to provide citations. But I am having all the source material or reference material. We can discuss all of them in this talk page. If we simply delete this article in future we are stopping a chance to know about the topic. So view points of everyone is welcomed and we all can disscuss about this topic --IrumudiChozhan (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genocides in history. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan

I think WP:RfC will be a good option in order to achieve consensus. Bharatiya29 09:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Generally, RfC's are successful if they follow detailed discussion. You need to give it some more time. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

So should I remove the section on Yadav or mantain the status quo? Bharatiya29 09:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That depends on how much stomach you have for edit wars. Personally, I think there is no point doing anything until there is consensus. There is plenty of Misplaced Pages out there for you to edit. No point wasting a lot of time on this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help in improving the article Buddha in a Traffic Jam

Please look at this version of the article "Buddha in a Traffic Jam". I feel it was not neutral. If you also feel so, please help in improving it. Thanks --Gaurav (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Please help if you also think so. --Gaurav (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm spamming your talk page. I just wanted to mention that this article is about a movie which claims to "exposes the sinister politics of the nexus of Naxals, NGOs, Academia and the Intelligentsia of India". --Gaurav (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only way is to increase the number of involved editors

What is happening in Yadav page is nothing but ganging up of three Pakistani editors. The remedy lies in involving maximum editors on the talk page including 1 or 2 admins. Only then NPOV can be established. It seems to be the only solution now. Ghatus (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the page has been full-protected for a second time. I am sure RP is watching it. How about if we collaborate to polish up Nuro Dragonfly's version? And then we can do an RfC if there is a dispute about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good Idea. Should we involve cool headed JJ as he also belongs to a third country? He can provide some NPOV.Ghatus (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No go. You have to follow WP:CANVASS, according to our friends. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source?

This appears to be a reliable source:
Kushwaha, R.S. (2003). Glimpses of Bhāratiya history. Ocean Books. ISBN 9788188322404

Would you be able to offer any insight(reliability)? Do you have access to this book which would in able you to check some things?

Also, what do you know about Jai Dev Anand? When he lived, died, etc, etc. Because it would appear he lived nearly two hundred years, defeating both Mahmud of Ghazni(d.1030) and Muhammad of Ghor(d.1206). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, The book is definitely Hindutva mythology, the page is a hoax, and should be speedy deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of Weasel Words into CPEC Article

Please refrain from insertion of Weasel words into the article regarding the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. You indeed have provided a source, but your choice of wording which includes : "Punjabi dominated" Pakistan using Balochistan as an "internal colony" to whom only a "miniscule portion" of natural resource revenue goes is clearly Weasel Wording.Willard84 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: Who are you? Are you the IP that is edit warring? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Further, I just read the source you quoted. It offers absolutely no numbers to justify the term "miniscule portion" of resource revenue reverting to Balochistan, nor does it even explain why the author used the term "internal colony" (which he uses also to reference Indian rule in Assam - I'm certain if I insert this into the Assam article that Indian contributors would remove it, and rightfully so, because the author again does not explain the use of this term).

Please bear in mind that just because something is published in a book, that does not make it a good source if the author neglects to even justify usage of such charged terms.Willard84 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I went even a step further, and looked more deeply into this article you posted. Firstly, the book you quoted merely mentions the findings of one Adeel Khan. I found the paper by Adeel Khan who was quoted in your source. He writes: "He would like to thank Siddiq Baloch, a senior journalist and Baloch nationalist, for providing him with contacts in Gwadar and for insights on the Balochistan Crisis" . This is a biased source, and the article itself doesnt even mention a "Punjabi dominated state," but rather a Punjabi dominated military. Nor does he provide any numbers he was using to calculate the "miniscule portion" of revenues being directed back to the provincial government.Willard84 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: You haven't yet answered my question. Who are you? If you are the same as the IP then you must declare it, as per Misplaced Pages's sockpuppet policy.

I presume you are as smart as you think you are. If so, you would note that the paragraph that I have cited is the editor's summary of a two full articles in the book. Please read those articles before you start casting aspersions on scholarly work based on your own opinions. A reliable source may be WP:BIASED. It is not for you, as the editor, to determine the validity. If the source is not accurate, then you should be able to produce other reliable sources that contradict it. Then we can use WP:NPOV to find a WP:BALANCE. We can't discount reliable sources based on your opinions.

As for the Assam article, please feel free to add well-sourced information. Nobody will object. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 you should comment on the content and not on the editor. Asking these pointed question in order to evade the actual issue that you yourself have inserted a bad text; falls foul of WP:NPA. I too can ask you some things about who you are and what IP you are using, and I too can ask you to declare if you are "this" or "that" IP, but I think you will mind and run straight to some noticeboard. So dont't ever use this kind of wording with another editor. As far as your bad edits are concerned, I have looked through the sourcing and I find it beyond poor, a source should be WP:RS before it can be considered to be above reproach and your source is not that. So the next time please take care, not to insert sources without making sure that the source is good. Also the sarcastic and pointy phrase "I presume you are as smart as you think you are" should not be used with other editors. I also find that you are not well versed in[REDACTED] policy on reliable sources. IF a source is not reliable, then no other sources is needed to contradict it, the reliability of a source depends upon itself. So, summing up. NEVER ask about an editors personal stuff, it is WP:OUTING and we all know some people don't like that (I don't like it either of course). Secondly, NEVER use pointed language to attack and browbeat an editor. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2009.49.6.1071?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents