Hi DeccanFlood! I noticed your contributions to Rajaram I and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{
PD-notice}}
as part of your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, —
Diannaa (
talk)
20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghoji I of Nagpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilaspur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello DeccanFlood! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
Raghoji I of Nagpur, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from
http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, and therefore to constitute a
violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's
copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to
lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Raghoji I of Nagpur saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ponyo
bons mots
18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)DeccanFlood ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have studied this extensively and I followed every single guideline here: [1]. It is clearly written and I quote: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing." @AdityaNakul and @Hassan_Gangu are already banned sockpuppets and they do not come under purview of "protection from personal attacks". For this last point I showed evidence multiple times. Your block isn't justified and I even stopped editing (reversing vandalism) pages for Talk page consensus-driven revision. I have only noted the identity of the voting lobby (entirely Muslim group of lobbyists, but voting on a Hindu State) on the Maratha Empire Talk page, and never passed any judgement ON the identity ( Islam) itself whatsoever. There is no personal attack even when deriding "motives" of the lobbyists since 2 of the editors have been already been suspended indefinitely for abusing Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot read anywhere that "extensive personal attacks" guidelines point carries over to already suspended profiles. It is not meant to be a display battleground behaviour but to get the attention of senior editors who banned those profiles which were earlier used for a sham consensus voting to mainstream misinformation. They forgot to review the votes. As a senior editor, please note this attempt to browbeat me: [2] by Padfoot2008. Is a new 2023 editor justified in pushing warnings on another editor who has been on Wikipedia for the same duration? It is an attempt to use a warning message which is meant to be automated or by very senior editors to intimidate new editors. It is on basis of this action (where a 2023 editor is attempting to pass off an automated notice as his own authorized warning) that I have relayed an "assumption of malice". I am wholly open to becoming mellow entirely if senior editors are just going to check the proceedings here: [3] DeccanFlood ( talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL that were repeated both in the unblock request and subsequent comments below. Take the three days to read and understand the linked policies (as well as comments by Ponyo below) because the next time make a reference to an editor's presumed religion and/or imply that their editing is motivated by that religion, you are liable to be blocked indefinitely. Abecedare ( talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
But the entire motive behind this lobbying was on religious grounds and religious nature of Mughal Empire against the Maratha Empire. It is their affinity to Mughals that is in question here. I obviously cannot call them Mughals or their adherents (since they most certainly are not Mughals) but this affinity is guided by co-religionist factor. Pointing out a factor that is clear Conflict of Interest is not considered personal attack - [4]. This is not outing either, since the contribution log is entirely public.
I had to explain it to Non-Indian Admins repeatedly so that they understand the factors at work. This is why I mentioned the religion again and again. I have read discussions here where there are Admins who have discussed Hindu nationalism as a factor in editing motives of Indians as well. There are no such qualms seen there then! Because this is regarding socio-political narratives and not just pure historical narratives. If it helped, I could've shown that, unfortunately there is more interest in curbing disruptions in the "community spirit" than stopping misinformation.
My only purpose in mentioning religion in the first place if for Non-Indian admins to understand what dimensions these narratives emerge from. This "Good Faith" spirit of Wikipedia should be with the senior admins in guiding newer admins. In all spirit of pragmatism, why is it not viable to discuss the reality that there are editors here who do not bother with any such ideals and spread their misinformation to the point they are opposed and eventually suspended. Even after suspension people don't track their Edit logs and reverse each and every falsehood. I just wanted to get attention of other senior admins and nip the propaganda in its bud. Instead there is nitpicking over certain terms. Now for 3 days there wouldn't be any participation in the discussions over the original sham consensus carried out to ruin Maratha Empire's history. I have already said I would never engage in such behaviour except for authorities to check, and I have never done so during my contributions here, as evident for all to check. DeccanFlood ( talk) 22:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
But I have challenged all of this (
[5]). It was an
Empire and not a
Confederacy, the attempt to change this is
Historical Negationism and thereby
misinformation (it will be debated formally with due civility).
I shouldn't have done that before establishing the Talk page topic, but I understood the futility and stopped reverting Padfoot2008's edits from that point. Padfoot2008's edits do go beyond this single topic, and are evident as a singular theme of Islamic state exaltation, which imply Conflict of Interest if not bias. I assumed directed malice from that but more on the basis of this [6]. You may kindly educate me whether any editor can send such warnings that are supposed to be automated/by senior tiers, to another editor, without any seniority or authority.
Padfoot2008's edits do not qualify as vandalism only if his edits are backed by that consensus voting on the Maratha Empire talk page. But that voting which involved 5 to 6 admins has been proven to be a sham by sockpuppets and has no validity (it is not a majority vote, hence not a consensus). In short they are vandalism, they qualify as vandalism because as per these guidelines: [7], he has been engaged in Subtle Vandalism and also possibly (I am having trouble comprehending this point fully) this trick of Gaming the system by letting his edits go unnoticed (since no Admin has, till now, noticed that 2 of the 5 or 6 voters of that consensus debate were sockpuppets as they were banned later). In short that debate did not have a majority vote, and it was a manipulated affair.
By blocking me for 72 hours, you have handicapped my attempts to garner attention and support of senior administrators over the malpractice. I expected to be supervised and instructed by them whether I am in the right or wrong, and not get blocked suddenly without any communication by you out of nowhere. I do not engage in passionate opposition or digging out edits, except to draw attention of senior administrators. It is a temporary mode of conduct, and it never reflects in my contributions to Wikipedia. If the Senior administrators wouldn't consider my stance to hold any water, I wouldn't engage in such behaviour as displayed. I request to be unblocked because I only work under guidance of senior administrators, and while I extensively studied the guidelines/rulers, if I was instructed on the conduct even once before the block I would have altered the tone of communication. Please allow me to respond to the editors. I have recently been replied to there. DeccanFlood ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
To the User
Robertsky, owing to this 72 hour ban, I am unable to reply to you directly. I attempted to maintain civility (at least it was my sincere intention). However my point, which might have implied signs of excitation, and appeared as personal attack (for pointing out the relatively new and agenda-driven Editor profiles) actually stands even now.
Before I explain how, let me tell you that I did notice that you shifted the page on request of a User:Extorc since he "closed" the discussion. But did you realize that this profile is also a 2021 creation and the main bulk of the discussions were carried forward by these profiles made in 2022-2023 (who have strong tendencies to have shared interests based on their contribution log) and such radical changes should not have been passed without the most senior editors participating extensively in the debate?
We must not assume bad faith even of lobbies, but my point in pointing out your foreign (Non-Indian) identity, with due respect, was that you cannot understand the implications of such changes in Indian narratives. The Hindu Maratha Empire had intact hierarchy where even the most elevated officers could never affect the position of the Satara Chhatrapati. It is an Islamic supremacist narrative that Mughal Emperor of Delhi was instead their overlord.
You have inadvertently supported and made a very volatile flimsy propaganda point mainstream. DeccanFlood ( talk) 20:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly.Considering all the three struck down !votes by the socks were very small statements which I didn't assign much weight to. Your quantitative analysis doesn't amount to much as far as I am concerned.
The consensus does not stand as recently claimed made by @Extorc. Only Noorullah, ImperialAficionado, and Padfoot2008 which are 3 Mughal history enthusiasts...This comment again amounts to WP:ADHOM as you are
using [their editing history] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views
It is my judgement that you are not qualified for this role of a "closer".- My eligibility as a closer is not subject to your judgement.
and have engaged in mainstreaming misinformation with support of an illicitly inflated lobby- I don't understand from where you get this. Please, in an elaborate response, demonstrate to me how I am a part of any lobby. Unless you can do that, stop making unsubstantiated claims.
You are digressing and claiming I am "using ... views", when such a claim is a strawman on your part.This is literally an equivalent of "No you". You have repeatedly claimed that we must stop taking their views into account and consensus because they are "Mughal Enthusiasts".
I have the right to freely point out Conflict of Interest as per the guidelinesWP:COI clearly states
[COI] editing involves contributing yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.>>> Extorc. talk 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Abecedare ( talk) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghoji I of Nagpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adan.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PadFoot ( talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
PadFoot (
talk)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Hi DeccanFlood! I noticed your contributions to Rajaram I and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{
PD-notice}}
as part of your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, —
Diannaa (
talk)
20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghoji I of Nagpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilaspur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello DeccanFlood! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
Raghoji I of Nagpur, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from
http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, and therefore to constitute a
violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's
copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to
lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Raghoji I of Nagpur saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ponyo
bons mots
18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)DeccanFlood ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have studied this extensively and I followed every single guideline here: [1]. It is clearly written and I quote: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing." @AdityaNakul and @Hassan_Gangu are already banned sockpuppets and they do not come under purview of "protection from personal attacks". For this last point I showed evidence multiple times. Your block isn't justified and I even stopped editing (reversing vandalism) pages for Talk page consensus-driven revision. I have only noted the identity of the voting lobby (entirely Muslim group of lobbyists, but voting on a Hindu State) on the Maratha Empire Talk page, and never passed any judgement ON the identity ( Islam) itself whatsoever. There is no personal attack even when deriding "motives" of the lobbyists since 2 of the editors have been already been suspended indefinitely for abusing Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot read anywhere that "extensive personal attacks" guidelines point carries over to already suspended profiles. It is not meant to be a display battleground behaviour but to get the attention of senior editors who banned those profiles which were earlier used for a sham consensus voting to mainstream misinformation. They forgot to review the votes. As a senior editor, please note this attempt to browbeat me: [2] by Padfoot2008. Is a new 2023 editor justified in pushing warnings on another editor who has been on Wikipedia for the same duration? It is an attempt to use a warning message which is meant to be automated or by very senior editors to intimidate new editors. It is on basis of this action (where a 2023 editor is attempting to pass off an automated notice as his own authorized warning) that I have relayed an "assumption of malice". I am wholly open to becoming mellow entirely if senior editors are just going to check the proceedings here: [3] DeccanFlood ( talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL that were repeated both in the unblock request and subsequent comments below. Take the three days to read and understand the linked policies (as well as comments by Ponyo below) because the next time make a reference to an editor's presumed religion and/or imply that their editing is motivated by that religion, you are liable to be blocked indefinitely. Abecedare ( talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
But the entire motive behind this lobbying was on religious grounds and religious nature of Mughal Empire against the Maratha Empire. It is their affinity to Mughals that is in question here. I obviously cannot call them Mughals or their adherents (since they most certainly are not Mughals) but this affinity is guided by co-religionist factor. Pointing out a factor that is clear Conflict of Interest is not considered personal attack - [4]. This is not outing either, since the contribution log is entirely public.
I had to explain it to Non-Indian Admins repeatedly so that they understand the factors at work. This is why I mentioned the religion again and again. I have read discussions here where there are Admins who have discussed Hindu nationalism as a factor in editing motives of Indians as well. There are no such qualms seen there then! Because this is regarding socio-political narratives and not just pure historical narratives. If it helped, I could've shown that, unfortunately there is more interest in curbing disruptions in the "community spirit" than stopping misinformation.
My only purpose in mentioning religion in the first place if for Non-Indian admins to understand what dimensions these narratives emerge from. This "Good Faith" spirit of Wikipedia should be with the senior admins in guiding newer admins. In all spirit of pragmatism, why is it not viable to discuss the reality that there are editors here who do not bother with any such ideals and spread their misinformation to the point they are opposed and eventually suspended. Even after suspension people don't track their Edit logs and reverse each and every falsehood. I just wanted to get attention of other senior admins and nip the propaganda in its bud. Instead there is nitpicking over certain terms. Now for 3 days there wouldn't be any participation in the discussions over the original sham consensus carried out to ruin Maratha Empire's history. I have already said I would never engage in such behaviour except for authorities to check, and I have never done so during my contributions here, as evident for all to check. DeccanFlood ( talk) 22:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
But I have challenged all of this (
[5]). It was an
Empire and not a
Confederacy, the attempt to change this is
Historical Negationism and thereby
misinformation (it will be debated formally with due civility).
I shouldn't have done that before establishing the Talk page topic, but I understood the futility and stopped reverting Padfoot2008's edits from that point. Padfoot2008's edits do go beyond this single topic, and are evident as a singular theme of Islamic state exaltation, which imply Conflict of Interest if not bias. I assumed directed malice from that but more on the basis of this [6]. You may kindly educate me whether any editor can send such warnings that are supposed to be automated/by senior tiers, to another editor, without any seniority or authority.
Padfoot2008's edits do not qualify as vandalism only if his edits are backed by that consensus voting on the Maratha Empire talk page. But that voting which involved 5 to 6 admins has been proven to be a sham by sockpuppets and has no validity (it is not a majority vote, hence not a consensus). In short they are vandalism, they qualify as vandalism because as per these guidelines: [7], he has been engaged in Subtle Vandalism and also possibly (I am having trouble comprehending this point fully) this trick of Gaming the system by letting his edits go unnoticed (since no Admin has, till now, noticed that 2 of the 5 or 6 voters of that consensus debate were sockpuppets as they were banned later). In short that debate did not have a majority vote, and it was a manipulated affair.
By blocking me for 72 hours, you have handicapped my attempts to garner attention and support of senior administrators over the malpractice. I expected to be supervised and instructed by them whether I am in the right or wrong, and not get blocked suddenly without any communication by you out of nowhere. I do not engage in passionate opposition or digging out edits, except to draw attention of senior administrators. It is a temporary mode of conduct, and it never reflects in my contributions to Wikipedia. If the Senior administrators wouldn't consider my stance to hold any water, I wouldn't engage in such behaviour as displayed. I request to be unblocked because I only work under guidance of senior administrators, and while I extensively studied the guidelines/rulers, if I was instructed on the conduct even once before the block I would have altered the tone of communication. Please allow me to respond to the editors. I have recently been replied to there. DeccanFlood ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
To the User
Robertsky, owing to this 72 hour ban, I am unable to reply to you directly. I attempted to maintain civility (at least it was my sincere intention). However my point, which might have implied signs of excitation, and appeared as personal attack (for pointing out the relatively new and agenda-driven Editor profiles) actually stands even now.
Before I explain how, let me tell you that I did notice that you shifted the page on request of a User:Extorc since he "closed" the discussion. But did you realize that this profile is also a 2021 creation and the main bulk of the discussions were carried forward by these profiles made in 2022-2023 (who have strong tendencies to have shared interests based on their contribution log) and such radical changes should not have been passed without the most senior editors participating extensively in the debate?
We must not assume bad faith even of lobbies, but my point in pointing out your foreign (Non-Indian) identity, with due respect, was that you cannot understand the implications of such changes in Indian narratives. The Hindu Maratha Empire had intact hierarchy where even the most elevated officers could never affect the position of the Satara Chhatrapati. It is an Islamic supremacist narrative that Mughal Emperor of Delhi was instead their overlord.
You have inadvertently supported and made a very volatile flimsy propaganda point mainstream. DeccanFlood ( talk) 20:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly.Considering all the three struck down !votes by the socks were very small statements which I didn't assign much weight to. Your quantitative analysis doesn't amount to much as far as I am concerned.
The consensus does not stand as recently claimed made by @Extorc. Only Noorullah, ImperialAficionado, and Padfoot2008 which are 3 Mughal history enthusiasts...This comment again amounts to WP:ADHOM as you are
using [their editing history] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views
It is my judgement that you are not qualified for this role of a "closer".- My eligibility as a closer is not subject to your judgement.
and have engaged in mainstreaming misinformation with support of an illicitly inflated lobby- I don't understand from where you get this. Please, in an elaborate response, demonstrate to me how I am a part of any lobby. Unless you can do that, stop making unsubstantiated claims.
You are digressing and claiming I am "using ... views", when such a claim is a strawman on your part.This is literally an equivalent of "No you". You have repeatedly claimed that we must stop taking their views into account and consensus because they are "Mughal Enthusiasts".
I have the right to freely point out Conflict of Interest as per the guidelinesWP:COI clearly states
[COI] editing involves contributing yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.>>> Extorc. talk 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Abecedare ( talk) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghoji I of Nagpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adan.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PadFoot ( talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
PadFoot (
talk)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)