User talk:Akshaypatill/Archive 1

October 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

  — DaxServer (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Will definitely from now on. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) ThanksAkshaypatill (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Subhas Chandra Bose have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. The lead sentence has been in place for over ten years. Any major changes to it, will require a talk page consensus. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand what a lead is. This is an introductory section and should introduce the person in question. It is often seen on Google when someone searches for it. Have a look at WP:EXPLAINLEAD.By going through the page history, the content you are being adamant on can be included in subsequent paragraphs. Also, I had attached valid sources for my claims. I will be reverting it back if you don't provide a valid reason for the revert, as you are undermining Wiki guidelines.Akshaypatill (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, you need to read WP:BRD. You made the bold change to a lead sentence that has been in place for years; I reverted it; it is now time to discuss it on the talk page first, arrive at a new consensus, and only then reword it. I recommend that you not edit war and self-revert instead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * A sentence being in place for years doesn't prove anything, especially when being reverted again and again. Don't assume role of maintainer of the page. And I haven't removed any content so I don't think there is no question of conflicting information and consensus. I have rephrased it to make it more readable and added two sentences that he is actually known for.Akshaypatill (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD says "the article's talk page." That is where you need to establish a consensus for your bold edits.  A new consensus takes times, weeks at the very least.  Please also read WP:Lead fixation.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any objection over the content? As in it not being true or distortion of facts?Akshaypatill (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Subhas Chandra Bose. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please note edit-warring is not the solution. Per WP:BRD you need to discuss your edits on the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and establish a consensus for them there. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

On the fly RFCs
Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. An RFC cannot be started about one edit is an set of evolving edits on a page. You appeared on the Subhas Chandra Bose page some 12 hours ago. You attempted to make some ungrammatical, very poorly sourced edits. Upon being reverted you attempted to edit war. When that did not get you anywhere, you began a dispute resolution. At this point, you had still not voiced any discontent on the article's talk page. I then tried to make the lead more coherent, but without changing anything you had written, you did not like that either. You started an RFC on the fly. When people use Wikipedia's various dispute resolution systems frivolously or misuse them in an attempt to push their own edits, it is WP:DISRUPTION. I am a longstanding competent editor. I am the main author of the FA India. To suggest that I don't know how to cite or to write the lead is insulting. Be warned, you are getting close to be penalized. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I ain't discrediting your contributions till the date, but don't be adamant to changes. Before accusing me of edit warring check out your own talk page. You have already got warnings from other editors for edit warring in this month. And it was you, who started all this mess. You could have stated me the reason for the reverting. Instead, you kept insisting in consensus. And now you are trying to refrain me from asking for consensus. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING
Hi, Akshaypatill. I notice there are quite a few posts from you on User talk:Fowler&fowler. Among other things, you emphasize that your recent 3RR warning is the third this month. So it is, but two of those warnings are from you, and you obviously posted the one before in retaliation for F&f's warning to you, which is bad manners. (Of course F&f was provably aware of the edit warring rules, since they just warned you. Don't retaliate.) In another recent post, it seems you favour a source from 1919 [sic] over more modern ones, with a reference to WP:Reliable_sources — really? That guideline does not appear to support your point about "insulting the works of these legends". Please, altogether, be aware of WP:HOUNDING. You seem to have recently followed F&F to Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film), an article that you had never previously edited and that doesn't fall in your usual Wikipedia interests, in order to revert them. (I see you refer obliquely to it just above.) You did so without addressing their point about "ableist terminology". That "wheelchair-bound is an English phrase" is hardly the point. Perhaps you'd like to look up Ableist in Wikipedia, or "Wheelchairbound" on Wiktionary. Anyway, please don't post on Fowler&fowler's talkpage again unless you need to give them a required alert; you have been completely dominating it, and not with the best kinds of discussion. please make it symmetrical by not posting on this page again. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC).

I am baddly missing. Anyway Thanks. I will keep that in mind. But I would like to have your say on one thing. In the previous post on my talk page Fowler&fowler says - I am the main author of the FA India. really? In another instance, he states that he has written the lead and it has been there for 10 years, and I shouldn't change it as I am new to this article. Isn't he assuming the maintainer's role or ownership for the article? Also a couple of hour he changed the whole leads in revenge writing. He reverted it again after I submitted it for RFC. Would you like to have a look at it? The book I mentioned is still in print (5th Edition 2010). The writer is a prominent historian. And you questioning the source, really? On the other hand, in an attempt to press his edits he provided a false source which I checked and found false. To which he said he don't have the book right now that's why he has done it. Check out the talk page of Subhas Chandra Bose. Would you comment on that too? Akshaypatill (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the ableist. I had checked it before the revert, but probably misspelt the word while searching. I have reverted my edit.Akshaypatill (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Will you kindly stop fiddling with your post so I can reply without edit conflicts?? It's inconsiderate to edit in installments the way you do. One more edit conflict and I won't reply at all. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC).


 * All right, then. It really is helpful to others if you finish your thought before posting, instead of posting in dribbles while you think. To answer you briefly: no, I actually wouldn't like to comment on the article talkpage. I'm warning you as an administrator, which means I'd better not involve myself in content discussions. But I'll say this: I agree with F&f about your RFC, it was inappropriate for the reasons he gives, and there was nothing wrong with editing during the RfC. I might have further comments if you provided diffs for statements like "in an attempt to press his edits he provided a false source which I checked and found false" etc. You are expecting me to do too much research. (Notice how I provided diffs for my remarks above, so that you could see exactly what I was talking about?) And please use colons to indent talkpage discussions. Please see WP:INDENT. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC).


 * Sorry for that. Have a look at []. He quoted a source that was false. He clarified later that he don't have the book right now. So he had provided me with a false source hoping I won't check it. All I wanted was nothing but a proper introduction to the subject in the lead. The first sentence of the lead is almost 50 words long and seems like a conclusion on his lifework rather than lead. I tried rephrasing it to make it more readable, but he kept on reverting. Because I made changes to the lead, from here on he started revenge writing, look - . He changed the whole lead. I didn't change anything but went for RFC on the lead. He suddenly reverted all his edits probably fearing comments from other editors because he had turned the lead into a full mess . I am willing to incorporate any suggestion given by them as long as they are as per Wiki guidelines. But he isn't providing me with anything. As per his insistence, I started the RFC  here  but, he is pressing me to refrain from starting RFC and warning me.Akshaypatill (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already told you what I think of your RFC. As for your first link, here, it's to a whole talkpage section, and I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to. What I see there is F&f quoting one source, Joyce Chapman Lebra, and, on being asked for more, stating that he doesn't have Anthony Low's book, and then referring to Leonard Gordon's article on the INA in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Not sure which of these sources you're talking about? Do you know how to create diffs? See Simple diff and link guide. Diffs have the advantage of being precise, and they don't rot when the page is archived, as your link will. BTW, I see another thing in the section you link to, which startled me rather. You began the section by inviting F&f to look at the lead at Jawaharlal Nehru as an example of what a lead should be like. F&f countered that he wrote that lead. Did you not notice..? Because at the end of the section, you circle back to your notion that F&f 'doesn't know what a lead is', and needs to check out other pages for examples. Frankly, you're bludgeoning him. Also, you say things like "let me satisfy your ego", which is straight-out insulting. Really, if you wanted me to agree with you whatsoever, it was a bad idea to link to how you were conducting yourself in that discussion, and the way you assumed bad faith. I notice violations of WP:AGF in your very post above also. ("he had provided me with a false source hoping I won't check it"). Please take this as another warning: no more personal attacks and no more assumptions of bad faith). You're looking at a sanction if it continues.


 * Some more general advice: You're not supposed to change something you've written after it has been responded to, because that wrongfoots the other person and makes their comment look wrong or odd. In this case, I'd commented on the last sentence of this, and then you removed it. That's not a good idea. By the way, also, adding a ping like you did here doesn't work and the user won't get pinged. See WP:MENTION. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC).

User:Bishonen I am quitting. Seems like you have already made your opinion. Thanks anyway. You entirely ignoring my points. Thanks anyway. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Still no comments on the revenge writing part. He resisted me making any changes to lead while changed whole lead and reverted upon asked for RFC.User:Bishonen Akshaypatill (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You selectively targeting me while discarding everything I say. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence to follow your instructions. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

All the things happened because I was frustrated by his conduct. Also you ignore the fact that at first I tried to make peace with him. He kept reverting my every edit, stating the reason as consensus. I didn't removed his edits, even after he rewrote the whole lead. Do we need to put every edit for consensus? This double standards frustrated me and anger took over me. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a little tired of this, I certainly don't have time to come back again today, but just one point: if you want to withdraw something you have said, don't blank it, for the reasons I explained, and also generally for being open about what you have said. Instead, strike through it by using . Check out the way I do it: Example . Also, it may be interesting for you to look at the way I made the code show up on the page by using the    template. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC).


 * User:Bishonen Ok, let's set everything aside. I am sorry for all the things I done in the frustration. I crossed my limits while communicating. Let me explain one things. Here -  This is the page where he rewrote the lead. I am talking about this section - "which had been founded by Major Iwaichi Fujiwara in 1942 from the Indian POWs of the British Indian army captured by the Japanese in the Battle of Singapore." I checked the quoted reference at page 31-32, but couldn't found anything related to what he had added to the article. I asked him about this and he told that he don't have the book. In short he was adding false reference. In talk page he told me that it is well known fact. What do you think about this?Akshaypatill (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please use Preview to check that you're using the right number of colons to indent? (It gets harder to distinguish who's talking when you don't, as just above.) I don't understand the problem with the way F&f rewrote the lead, or why you take it as "revenge". As for the Iwaichi Fujiwara thing, I don't have the means to have an opinion, as I can't access those pages in Google books. People in different parts of the world see different things in Google books. Please see User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Also, as I said above — I seem to be repeating myself a lot — F&f offered several other sources, by Joyce Chapman Lebra and by Leonard Gordon. If there are things you want to apologise for, why apologise to me? Surely F&f would be the appropriate recipient of any apologies going. (That does not mean you'd have to post on his page, which I have told you not to do. You could just do it here and ping him — ping correctly, per WP:MENTION, or it won't work.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC).


 * User:Bishonen The book you discarded because it is published in 1919, is already used in the article. See - Section "In late March 1680, Shivaji fell ill with fever and dysentery,[123]]". Another -  Second paragraph - "According to Sarkar, Shahaji was...." This is the same book and same author same year. But when I used it as reference it became too old.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! Ha! Ha !Ha! To my surprise take a look here man. - The last paragraph - "In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal Shivaji and His Times, hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 A History of the Mahrattas. A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji.[174] Likewise, though supporters cheered his depiction of the killing of Afzal Khan as justified, they decried Sarkar's terming as "murder" the killing of the Hindu raja Chandrao More and his clan.[175]"Akshaypatill (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That is pure bias bro. What else can I say?Akshaypatill (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Warning
You've already been alerted to discretionary sanctions and you are repeatedly showing that you are unable to edit collegially or abide by consensus. If this continues then your editing privileges may be revoked and/or a topic ban imposed. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * May I know where did I make any edit against consensus, so I can improve my conduct? Am I breaking any Wiki policies by giving sources and putting arguments on talk page? Akshaypatill (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are clearly editing against consensus at Tipu Sultan and refusing to listen to other editors. That you can not see the issue itself is problematic. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion carefully the other editor has already accepted my point and have said it deserves a mention in lead. And we are discussing what could be the content. You ought to read the full discussion before issuing a warning. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read the full discussion, and it is clear that you are not able to accept other points and keep spinning in circles. I am not saying that you're wrong or right, I haven't and will not look at the content part, just the behavior, especially after the discussion at RSN etc. That you can't see it, is a major problem. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Allright. But as you can see, after the RSN, I had left the topic. I came back to it because another editor left a comment for me. Meanwhile, I got hold on a source by a Scholar, which is a valid source as per the RSN requirements, which I presented for opinion on the talk page, to which the other editor agreed to include. I had no intention to take part in the discussion again after the RSN. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)