User talk:Shakakarta

This is Shakakarta's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daulat Khan (Maratha Navy admiral) has been accepted

Daulat Khan (Maratha Navy admiral), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gheus (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Shakakarta!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ratnahastin (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mysore–Travancore war for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mysore–Travancore war is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysore–Travancore war until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Your addition to Siege of Panhala (1692–1694) has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases, especially if they are not attributed to their source, may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Can you please check again? I have worded the content all by myself, if the collateral damage could be avoided then it'll be great. I'll try to write again. Shakakarta (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, and yes, my eyes still work. Look at the last paragraph for an absolutely obvious example. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the starting paragraphs were written well? I can work further to improve it, please restore the non copyrighted material. Shakakarta (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maratha Empire. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus should be achieved before making large changes to an article. Being right, assuming you are, is not a good reason for edit warring. SKAG123 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Maratha Empire) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Please reconsider your block, I haven't violated WP:3RR, and my revert contains removals of unsourced contents which were on Maratha Empire. Shakakarta (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

My revert was a basic cleanup for the new move, like changing the category and terms containing Maratha Confederacy to the Maratha Empire, then some lead cleanups and removal of unverified material. Moreover I'm aware of WP:3RR, so kindly let me contribute again, I'll use the talk page more than ever, to attain understanding. Shakakarta (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No need to lift the block; you are free to suggest edits on the article's talk page already. As this is your declared goal, there's no reason to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (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.

@Yamla: What I mean from using the talk page more than before is to follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKFIRST.Shakakarta (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage you already need to follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKFIRST. This block is from the article not from the talk page so you can start that process now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Callanec. Previously I was not able to reply on the talk page. Shakakarta (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian military history case opened

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedy proposed which affects you

Hi Shakakarta, in the open Indian military history arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
2. Human activity in India
3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
6. India–Pakistan relations
7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed