User talk:Friendly Batman

January 2021

Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vaghela dynasty without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. utcursch | talk 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have a look at WP:CITELEAD - the article lead is a summary of the content sourced in the article body. Lack of citations in the lead doesn't mean that the lead is unsourced. utcursch | talk 20:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Batman, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Friendly Batman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Eyebeller. I noticed that in this edit to Battle of Talikota, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eyebeller 12:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should you continue to remove content falsely claiming vandalism I will be reporting you to WP:ANI. FDW777 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that I was fixing vandalism and factual inaccuracies in the article. Please restored my edit. You can fix typos in my edit if you like. Friendly Batman (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on vandalism.

I saw factual inaccuracies in the article Balle of Talikota. My edit was reversed in no time. What is the point of having a platform when historians/scholars can't even fix errors? Friendly Batman (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific comments, I suggest you raise them at Talk:Battle of Talikota. That you saw fit to add unreferenced content such as Eaton's analysis is rejected by most historians and Historians like Eating [sic] and Romila Thapar are accused of dishonest scholarship and normative inversion in this analysis of balle [sic] of Talikota suggests the problem is with your editing. FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two spelling errors in my editing that was bcz of typos. The content I edited was factually correct and even supported by many parts of the same article. Restored my edit. You can fix typos if you want. Friendly Batman (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The typos are a secondary, and minor issue. You can reinstate the content if you really think it's a good idea, but if you do you'll be at WP:ANI in short order. FDW777 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This authoritarian behavior. How would anyone contribute to the information if you guys bully content editors? What you are doing is basically maintaining a political ideological view on the site instead of fact based analysis. Friendly Batman (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm preventing disruption by an editor intent on adding their own opinions in the place of what appears to be properly referenced content. I repeat my suggestion that you raise specific issues at Talk:Battle of Talikota. FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is horrible. I added fact based content which even the previous form of article had in unorganized manner. You just restored vandalism due to political and ideological inclination and not bcz of fact based analysis. Friendly Batman (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:NOTVANDALISM, and refrain from using that term again. FDW777 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either mention factual inaccuracy in my edit or restored my edit. Don't make this platform a propaganda site. Friendly Batman (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your timeline of edits. You have been vandalizing all the battle pages of Hindu as well as Indian victories. IMO you are some islamist who is vandalizing factual analysis based information/article accroding to your own ideological inclination. Friendly Batman (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certain content moderators who are radicals ideologues and have Pro islamists views are not allowing academics/historians to fix the factual errors related Hindu history as well as Indian history. They have been vandalising and deleting factual information on several battles involving Hindu kings & India and pushing pro islamist narrative. Friendly Batman (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Battle of Talikota) for a period of 2 weeks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullying and misused of privilege by Senior editors. Hoe would one contribute to the article if the content is being vandalized by Senior editors themselves? This is not a platform for political propaganda but information. Keep it that way. If you think that the content added by me in the article had inaccuracies then point them out. Don't just bly or delete or block people who are expert on the subject. Friendly Batman (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you use any variant of the word "vandalism" in an incorrect context again I will be asking for discretionary sanctions to be applied, which you were notified about at #ARBIPA sanctions alert above. FDW777 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friendly Batman, I just noticed that you had never received a welcome message. So, here it is. Please use the time you have been given to go through the policies described in the links above. Adherence to the policies is a requirement for all editing on India/Pakistan/Afghanistan topics. Failure to follow policies will lead to blocks and bans, as you are already aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of all this if you guys gang up against new editors to bully them and dete their content in order to maintain political propaganda hegemony. Friendly Batman (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new editor is exactly why I have given you a welcome message. The "point" is so that you can understand the policies of Wikipedia and contribute constructively. Please note that Wikipedia is a worldwide resource that aims to provide authentic information. It is not a private blog site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva

Hi, it is necessary to use edit summaries to explain why one is removing content. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned that I am removing revision. Please restore Friendly Batman (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly see that you are removing content, but you did not explain why you removed that content. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the source in Battle of Lahore (1759) says that the Sikhs were allied, you did not adequately explain why you think that content should not be mentioned. We reflect sources, so if you know of better sources you can add them to the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing (including ethno-national provocations).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Friendly Batman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from editing for no reason and false allegation imposed on me by a some anti-social elements and Muslim supremacists who happen to be senior editors on this site. My edits were fact based information against constant vandalism on many battles, religious issue related to India & Hinduism. Several senior editors who have Pro Muslim supremacist agenda have been vandalising those pages and any fact based improvement in any article by me is labelled as Political or religious agenda by them. They are misuing and abusing their privilege on this site. Unblock my account. Thanks. Friendly Batman (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Interesting strategy, doubling down on your ethno-national attacks while contesting your block for ethno-national attacks. It didn't pay off for you. You've also lost talk page access. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.