User talk:SKAG123

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Raghuji Bhosale

Firstly it is you are not your. Get your grammar right before telling me to "improve" my grammar and secondly what aspect of it is violating WP Peacock. Can you explain Rama1234567 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot explain then allow me to revise the edit and put it back up. Rama1234567 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also you are making it WP Battleground because of the comments you are making about my grammar. Rama1234567 (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that your edits weren’t encyclopedic isn’t battleground behavior at all. SKAG123 (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Try to improve your grammar before making any other edits to English Wikipedia". This is not a violation of WP Battleground? To say an editor lacks basic English grammar skills? Also they were encyclopedic. Regardless I had no choice but to accept your edit though it obviously did not say why out of all the gods was it named after Shiva. Regardless I will revert it to your revision despite lack of proof given by you as to how it was WP:PEACOCK to avoid edit wars. Rama1234567 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

with Harihareshwar as Kuldaivat and Balaji Bajirao's devotion to Shankar people can understand why he was named Sadashiv. Rama1234567 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book literally says पेशवे घराण्यात थोरल्या नानांपासून शंकराची भक्ती असल्याने आणि कुलदैवत हरिहरेश्वर असल्याने चिमाजी अप्पांच्या या पुत्राचे नाव ही भगवान शंकरावरून सदाशिव असे ठेवण्यात आले. Have you read it before dismissing it as He was named after Shiva? Rama1234567 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also have you read any book on Sadashivrao Bhau? Rama1234567 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. :(

Unfortunately, you can’t change edit summaries.

Regardless Words such as “fought resolutely” don’t belong on Wikipedia. Please actually read WP:PEACOCK as the examples there resemble your edits. SKAG123 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the Marathas used a secular policy of administration

I discussed with @Ratnahastin and he admitted that the source did not say Marathas used a secular policy of administration. He, however, said that the source did describe the Character of the Marathas none of which included Secular. So please don't put that and don't arbritarily change to the one of Ratnhastin when I have provided him the source which does not say that. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.10091/page/n129/mode/2up See this. There is no mention of the word. Don't just change it to that of Ratnahastin without source checking it. Please source check it next time. Thanks Rama1234567 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest looking at the source next time before restoring something back which does not have any source. Rama1234567 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1289000882 Rama1234567 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise if I should use the talk page then kindly respond on Map of the Marathas + Yashwantrao Holkar Bajirao II and Panipat Rama1234567 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding map of Marathas during Bajirao's time

Hi, SKAG firstly thanks for improving the layout of the article! Though I have reinstated some of the images as per description provided by me in the edit summary (you could check).

I have some queries regarding the map you inserted in the article;

1.) Raghuji annexed Orissa in 1750s (see it) which is in the map so that should be excluded only Nagpur and Chhattisgarh territories should be included as those were mostly conquered by 1740.

2.) Deccan was under chauth- a regular tribute or tributary status of the Marathas post Palkhed (1728) source [1] (Pg 122)

3.) Nizam was under tributary status too source [2] (Pg 198)

4.) Kingdoms of Mewar and Jaipur were also bound to pay regular chauth source [3] (Pg 150-151) Ah Kota too same source Pg 160.

5.) Karnataka too but that already comes under Deccan source [4] (Pg 85)

Conclusion: The above changes should be included in map sources are ofc reliable. Rest of the things were correct so a new map should be made with caption "Maratha Empire at the death of Bajirao I in 1740" and tributary territories (chauth one) should be shown in some other colour and directly controlled territories in some other. Once it's done, you could replace it with the current one in the article.

Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

— Wug·a·po·des 00:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Sophie Scholl article

Regarding the two edits, I do believe that they're still factual since I only add details about her cellmate and her fiancee, which can be viewed on their Wikipedia pages respectively. I do wished these details added, as it can explain more about their relationship regarding to Sophie. 103.1.158.36 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please cite sources next time, Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi SKAG123. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re Felix G. Arroyo

Hi there! You just reverted my edit to Felix G. Arroyo as uncited but I believe that you did so erroneously. I edited the page to remove now-outdated information that is in fact contradicted by a later, cited, sentence in the same paragraph. In particular, prior to my edit the page stated that a civil suit against Mr. Arroyo had not yet gone to trial as of 2020. However, as noted later, the parties settled, making the case no longer ongoing. Please consider undoing your reversion.

As a separate matter, the counter-suit for defamation that the article describes as "scheduled for trial in June 2025" has actually been concluded, but I wasn't up for updating the page that substantially. If you are that would be amazing! See here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/23/metro/jury-verdict-against-felix-g-arroyo-defamation-lawsuit-sexual-harassment/ 156.33.241.76 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try to explain your edit in your edit summery next time. This would help avoid any confusion. Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]