User talk:Kautilya3
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Have a look
[edit]Have a look at this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again [1]. Are these additions factual and leadworthy?
- This guy is the sock. The other one, they are edit warring with is also a sock. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know. I suspected as much. But, until they get tagged, I have to WP:AGF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- have a look at This cat, created by this user. Was active at Northeast India propagating those POV WESEA stuff. They got their ID-name changed recently. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at this removal. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look [2]. Some of their changes are apparently constructive, but I'm not sure about this servant→slave conversion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- A new user added a large chunk of content here. Though with sources, the writing looks a bit journo-style. have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media
[edit]There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reposted after discussions with Oversight team / Barkeep49. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparent vandalism on a page you had edited
[edit]Hello Kautilya3. You had done useful edits on Brahma Chellaney. There has been some apparent vandalism on that page that I have just undone. I thought you might like to keep an eye on that page in case further attempts are made to delete content or add anything unsourced. Germanicguard (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Germanicguard. I don't have too much time on my hands right no to monitor all the pages. But I am happy that you are watching and taking care of the vandalism. Thanks very much! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Kautilya3. That page has again been vandalized by the same user, who has restored his previous version. You had provided balance and objectivity to that page with your contribution. You are an experienced and good editor. And I leave it to your judgment to respond to this vandalism. -- Germanicguard Germanicguard (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Tripartite Struggle
[edit]Thank you for fixing the Umayyad Campaigns in India. Can you please take a look at "Tripartite Struggle?" The editor is relaying only on two sources, disregarding other reliable texts that offer a different point of view. Could you provide your opinion?Maglorbd (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
JK assembly elections
[edit]A user is repeatedly reverting ([3], [4]) to add undue mentions of the lithium reserves (the user wrote that entire lithium reserves article) to the very lead paragraph of the JK assembly elections article, despite highly questionable notability and relevance, and there being no mention of the reserves in the article body. The assembly elections article is under WP:CT/IPA, could you take a look at this? UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Fylindfotberserk: for more eyes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX: None of the sources establish any relation with the assembly election. It is plain WP:OR likely to drive a certain narrative. Even if we have sources that explcitly mention it, it should be in the article body. Doesn't seem leadworthy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: I agree that it isn't leadworthy at all and that there is little relevance to the assembly elections. As Kautilya3 already said in edit summary, it seems to be a case of WP:Lead fixation. Is the article subject to WP:1RR for being under CT/IPA? If yes, I think the editor has now violated 1RR, for they have reinserted that info back into the lead. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:The editor has been edit warring and pushing it since 26 September 2024, and is on the verge to violating the standard 3RR. I believe the policy needs to be explained to them and asked to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page, per WP:BRD. They have expanded it in the article body as well, but skimming through, I don't see any connection between that and the subject matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: the continuous edit warring is problematic. Even with what has been added to the body (which I doubt is due even there), I definitely do believe it is incredibly WP:UNDUE in the lead especially in such detail and in the very first paragraph. Could you remove that? I would do so myself but I do not wish to edit war, nor do I have the time to do explain the policies to them at the moment. Thanks. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:The editor has been edit warring and pushing it since 26 September 2024, and is on the verge to violating the standard 3RR. I believe the policy needs to be explained to them and asked to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page, per WP:BRD. They have expanded it in the article body as well, but skimming through, I don't see any connection between that and the subject matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: I agree that it isn't leadworthy at all and that there is little relevance to the assembly elections. As Kautilya3 already said in edit summary, it seems to be a case of WP:Lead fixation. Is the article subject to WP:1RR for being under CT/IPA? If yes, I think the editor has now violated 1RR, for they have reinserted that info back into the lead. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX: None of the sources establish any relation with the assembly election. It is plain WP:OR likely to drive a certain narrative. Even if we have sources that explcitly mention it, it should be in the article body. Doesn't seem leadworthy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
see this
[edit][5] removing "mythology"/ Doug Weller talk 15:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Hindu mythology
[edit]Hi, Kautilya. Thank you for warning Marvelcanon1 about removing "myth" and "mythology", but would you perhaps like to move your post to the bottom of the page, where they're more likely to see it? (I'm just planning to add another, sharper, warning, and they would go well together.) I think they may well not notice something up along with a contentious topic alert from February. Bishonen | tålk 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC).
Important: Please update user script installation
[edit]Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew
. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew
, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.
To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew
with Anne drew
.
If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!
Thanks – Anne drew
You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)