User talk:SubQuad

I am trying this to replace red with blue. :)

Welcome!
Hello, SubQuad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your contributions
I am finding myself having to revert quite a few of your contributions, for example at Rajput and at List of Rajputs. I have added explanations in the edit summary but the reasons are many and varied. Feel free to ask me for clarification if you do not understand any of them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Shivaji Name
Well you are definitely not a knowledgeable person when it comes to MARATHA. As you Mentioned Maratha as caste which is not a caste but only a clan similar to RAJPUTS(36 CLANS SELECTED FROM VARIOUS CASTE SUCH AS YADAVA,JATS,GUJJARS,DECCAN). Further by deleting content which are sourced from not only a REPUTED Source but from one of the most authentic and famous biographies of Shivaji Maharaj. Shivaji the Great by Dr Bal Krishna this book is among the listed books in britannica and soviet encyclopaedia and easily the most "ACCURATE BOOK ON THE LIFE OF SHIVAJI". Similarly search the name of C V VAIDYA the renowned historian from Maharashtra his work is "SHIVAJI THE FOUNDER OF MARATHA SWARAJ" further read "DR HAROON KHAN SHERWANI(PADMA BHUSHAN AWARDER HISTORIAN OF DECCAN) "BAHMANIS OF DECCAN"(P-385-401). Yes you can add a NOTE along with Shivaji name that CERTAIN SCHOLARS HAVE CONTESTED THE SISODIA ORIGIN. But you cant remove as their are many WELL KNOWN HISTORIANS WHO SUPPORT SHIVAJI RAJPUT ORIGIN.122.161.222.51 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. but I will have to add some more content to it as well. U can re-write the matter again. I will see it later, what shud be added. SubQuad (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As i said you can without any doubt add a NOTE that scholars such as "SIR JADUNATH SARKAR" and "JUSTICE MG RANADE" doubt sisodia origin of shivaji but at the same time you cant ignore other eminent scholars such as dr balkrishna, dr surendranath sen, Rao Bahadur Parasnis, DV apte, CV VAIDYA all these are eminent Maratha Historians and they "SUPPORT SHIVAJI RAJPUT ORIGIN" whereas as i said scholars such as jadunath sarkar and mg ranade oppose it. History has never "ONE FACE", their will be multiple claims so better add a NOTE but dont delete the name,ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Rajput
Hi, I see that you are a fairly new user, and you've jumped into a fairly contentious area of Wikipedia. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you'll find many policies bandied about with great frequency. I wanted to point out that this is not vandalism; please read the policy for what vandalism is. Tossing around accusations of vandalism often indicates a level of belligerence not compatible with collaborative working, so keep that in mind next time. You're certainly permitted to disagree with other editors, but you should raise your objections on the talkpage (in this case, Talk:Rajput) and clearly, concisely state your objections, and your arguments should be based in policy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me and I'll do what I can to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have an issue bring it up on Talk:Rajput; Sitush is a great editor, and if you're willing to work with him he'll gladly work with you. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages
Can you please not do things such as this again. You totally confused me by removing a whole load of content that I was sure had been there but then decided was perhaps at another article. You also incorporated a notice regarding your report of me at WP:ANI inside another edit and at the top of the page, which is not how we do things. There are clear instructions regarding the normal way of notifying people, and I would not have spotted your notification at all if it were not for the intervention of, who did. And your report at ANI itself was positioned at the top of that page instead of at the bottom, as the large notice there instructed. Oh, and you seem to be omitting to sign your messages quite frequently also, for which purpose one method is to type ~ (that is, four tilde characters) at the end of what ever it is you want to say. I think that the general issue here is that you need to make haste slowly and read things carefully. It will pay dividends in the long run: read, enquire politely and, as far as you are aware, follow the policies and guidelines. If someone points out that you are not following them then take a look at the article that they link to, learn from that and try not to make the same mistake again. You'll get some leeway as a newcomer but that leeway will not last for ever: we have a notion that we "assume good faith" in what people say and do, but the wells of faith will eventually run dry if someone shows no particularly desire or capability of working to the rules established by consensus in this collaborative environment. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just realised that you did not notify of the thread that you started at ANI. Given that most of the thread relates to his initial removal of the Oregon content at Kashmiri Pandit, and given that you name F&f, you really should have left a note at the bottom of his talk page. I've done it for you, although I have chosen not to use the standard template. I would advise you to use that standard template (which is mentioned near the top of the ANI page & can be copy/pasted) should you find yourself wanting to go to ANI again in, say, the next six months or so: it is designed to be neutrally worded and therefore deflects some possible trouble that could occur if an inexperienced contributor phrases things "freehand". - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What I want is admins' intervention for out dispute on Kashmiri Pandit. We got no consensus on the talk page. I read somewhere that ANI is for dispute resolution. U are supporting view of fowler&fowler that resolution is not important. And I have the same view "Who is he to decide?" I am sorry for being a bit harsh. But I was not complaining aganist anyone, but just want the dispute to be solved.SubQuad (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)