User talk:Krishna57edits

Welcome!

Hi Krishna57edits! I noticed your contributions 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hi Krishna57edits! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Capture of Delhi (1771)‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 15:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chandragupta Maurya, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the minor edit flag

Please stop misusing the minor edit flag in your edits. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You have already been warned once about this. If you continue to mark substantial edits as being minor, as you did at Afghan-Maratha War, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting me

Please stop reverting me until you have gained some more experience. If you disagree with one of my edits, even after reading the associated edit summary, then I suggest that you ask for clarification. I do get things wrong occasionally but you seem not to be understanding why I have done the things I have. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

u removed whole battle of uruli page every citation every thing what are u on u removing battles of hindus dharmaexe323 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am following policies and guidelines which I suspect you are not familiar with. If you don't undo this edit yourself, you are likely to find out what happens when you edit war, which can include you being blocked from editing. You are reverting me even after I've asked you to enquire first: I've got 16 years and over 250k edits here as a part of my experience and it would be better if you tapped into that rather than assume you are right. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:RAJ? Aside from the edit mentioned above being inappropriate for the infobox, the Bannerjee source dates from 1943 and thus is inappropriate, period. You've cited the 1968 reprint but it will not do.

Furthermore, the "conflict" field in the infobox is not intended to repeat the name of the battle, as you have caused it to do. Its function is to indicate, where appropriate, the wider conflict of which a battle formed a part. Eg: the Battle of the Somme was a part of World War I. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Battle of Wai. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Bishonen | tålk 20:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

First account?

Is this your first account on Wikipedia? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a response. You've just been very quick to revert me, yet again showing a lack of understanding. - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stop reverting me i provided the source from

THE ZAMINDARS AND NAWABS OF BENGAL

By SAMIR GANGULI

and there are bengalis who are providing there regional bengali text which non bengali cant read. so stop this im requesting u dharmaexe323 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That book is not a reliable source. Moreover, it doesn't covers the topics you put there. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why are you so biased u r adding only those battles which are bengal victory so dont be biased add those battles too which were maratha victory and u r saying that source is not reliable but u r adding bengali text which are biased and unreliable too and non bengali cant read dharmaexe323 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Life and times of Alivardi Khan' is wriiten in English. If you want me to cite more sources, no problem. I will do it. The reason why I didn't add Maratha victory is that I couldn't find one. If you finds that, cite properly and add a reliable sourve with page number. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THE ZAMINDARS AND NAWABS OF BENGAL

By SAMIR GANGULI

how can u tell that this source is not reliable, this source is better than ur bengali text dharmaexe323 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still awaiting an answer to my question above. Is this your first account on Wikipedia? - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SitushSitush, what is the problem? Is this account suspected of sockpuppetry? Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayraj890 I just want an answer. I'm not getting one, so the next step could well be a pre-emptive block to cause it to happen. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alivardi and his times.You are saying this book is written in Bengali? The reason why your source " THE ZAMINDARS AND NAWABS OF BENGAL

By SAMIR GANGULI" is not acceptable because the context is missing and it doesn't say from where it got the information from. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok then i will add battles from Alivardi and his times book then >.? dharmaexe323 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayraj890 No - see WP:RAJ. That book dates from 1939. I think the pair of you need to stop editing the article for a while because you're both being clueless. And this discussion about sourcing should have been held at the article talk, not here. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

let me add dont revert dharmaexe323 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still no response to my original question. I will have to assume that yours is a sockpuppet account, perhaps of Melechha (talk · contribs). One for the admins, such as Bishonen, RegentsPark and Dougweller. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your early edits, including knowledge of terms such as templates & seeking page protection, certainly suggested this is not your first time on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is my first account dharmaexe323 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]