User talk:KamalVishwas

Mughal Maratha Wars
Result here means 'outcome,' not 'climax.' Either of the belligerents win or lose. But this in essence wasn't a war. It was a prolonged series of clashes in which both sides had victories and defeats. This article is as it is heavily biased in favour of the Marathas. You'll find many uncited claims in it, if you read it thoroughly. That's why it's been rated 'B' by the administrator. If you mention that Aurangzeb retreated, that will slant the article even further in Marathas favour. Moreover, I've specified that the Marathas had a streak of victories towards the end of the war. So it's just a superfluous detail. And it's an infobox. In the results section you must only mention the outcome, and not cram it with too many details. The fact that Aurangzeb retreated is acknowledged down in the article. So you don't need to mention the same above, in the infobox. An infobox is merely a concise fact sheet. Don't jam it up. Chippy pest (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with your saying that the whole 27 years of war is not a war. The Mughals were the first to start the war. Their primary aim was to annex the rising Maratha empire but ultimately failed in doing so. Aurangzeb's retreat is important because it marks the end of the 27 year war post which no sucessor of Aurangzeb tried prolonging the war.KamalVishwas (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't read the whole article. It does state that Aurangzeb retreated. It's a fact that it was a prolonged series of battles and not a "war," in the literal sense of the word. So it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. You can't agree or disagree with a fact. You just have to accept it. The Mughals first annexed Bijapur. It wasn't regained by the Marathas until the 1750s. Aurangzeb had also successfully conquered Satara which was again regained by the Marathas only in 1708, i.e. a year after the war ended. Subsequently, Aurangzeb also conquered Gingee, which the Marathas could never regain. So don't try to suggest that the Mughals were absolutely vanquished. They weren't. In fact, they won many battles, and that's specified in the citations. Both of us know it, so there's no denying that. Furthermore, the fact that Aurangzeb retreated is clearly specified in the article. So I don't see why you should mention it again in the infobox. Chippy pest (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The marathas capital satara along with others like parali, sinhgad was regained by them by 1706 and more forts were regained by them even by 1705 (read the references). I agree marathas were not able to regain gingee but the south was never the stronghold of marathas instead they were able to defeat mughals in lot of places in north (which was mughal's stronghold then) by the end of the war like bhopal, bharoch, malwa plateau. The final fate of aurangzeb who mainly started the war does deserve to be put on the infobox as it also marks the end of the 27 year war. KamalVishwas (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The Marathas conquered Saurashtra only after Aurangzeb's death. Satara was conquered by Chattrapati Shahu in 1708. Please get your facts straight. In any case, there's no need to mention the fact that Aurangzeb retreated. It doesn't mark the end of the so-called "27 year war." His death does. So again you're wrong there. Chippy pest (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Satara was regained by 1706 by Parshuram Pant Pratinidhi. That was before the end of the war. Just ask yourself this. What was the primary goal of mughals for starting the war? Did they achieve their goal? If not, what was the end result of their goal?KamalVishwas (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I never made any abrupt changes. They were made by you and that too without any summary of explanation. I was the one who set the infobox right, not you. So don't needlessly make any accusation. You've just joined today. All right? So be civil. Chippy pest (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you've cited nowhere mentions that Satara was reconquered by the Marathas in 1706. Gingee was the capital of the Marathas. So don't say it wasn't their stronghold. They'd occupied it for 15-odd years. Chippy pest (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

To answer your questions, as an objective observer I must look at what both sides did to each other. The people actually lost. 2.5 million died. So it's a matter of shame. I don't see what's so great about conquest and raids. Anyway, perhaps that seems irrelevant to you. So it's best not to talk about it, right? Chippy pest (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mughals were fairly successful indeed. That's demonstrated by their victories over Marathas. Chippy pest (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seeded a discussion on the issue on the article talkpage. Please take a look and participate there. Abecedare (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Your recent editing history at Mughal–Maratha Wars 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. See BRD for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User Chippy pest is the one who made abrupt changes to the infobox without using talk page. Im merely reverting the info box to its neutral state that it had before. KamalVishwas (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)