User talk:Anvesh.rajeshirke

February 2024

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shirke, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir or madam,

I have been provided proofs for the given statements. Please mention any specific topic you find more citation. Thanks for co operation.

With kind regards,

ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shirke. Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BBB,

Please kindly unblock me. I did not intend to cause disruption. I was in the process of editing the whole page, when my content was blocked. I have been adding the references. Please be patient & allow me to add all the details.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks.

With kind regards,

Anvesh Rajeshirke

PhD researcher

Imperial college London Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Shirke) for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear sir or madam, I have been in the middle of editing this article before someone comes & change the article. First I was unsure, where it was an error by me touching wrong option. Even I panicked because everything I wrote was lost & had no idea how to recover it. Yet soon I found the way & recovered the text. Please be patient with me. I am only adding information which has been true. I was blocked from the page before I could even finish writing all the references. Therefore, I request you to unblock me & allow me to add the remaining references. If we indulge into dispute, we can discuss then. But not please unblock me. Thanks for cooperation. With kind regards, ADR.

Decline reason:

You are blocked from one single article. You may continue to edit Wikipedia; you can discuss your desired changes at Talk:Shirke. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:19, 17 February 2024 (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.

. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies please reply. To my message. Thanks. With kind regards, ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 please let me know what statements made you change the article? Thanks with kind regards, ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have done all that research and added the proper citations in the first place. And you could have paid attention to the messages on this talk page, instead of simply reverting without even giving an edit summary. Whether you are right or wrong in the actual content is really not relevant. You may discuss on the talk page: I blocked you only from editing the main article. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new. I have done the research already.i am not a programer hence not very swift with adding reference or even images. I was even surprised that someone would look into this article while I was edited.

All the statements I mentioned are with proofs if you go back and read them. I just need to add external links to them.

Thanks for being very attentive. But please be cooperative & allow me to finish editing. If you have any questions thereafter please write. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks.

With kind regards,

ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Bbb23 can you please confirm what information is in conflict? Thanks. With kind regards, ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies please mind your words when saying whether I am wrong or right with actual content is NOT relevant! I am spending time to spread the truth to the wider audience. If you blocked me & don't care about relevance then someone senior should look into this. Kindly unblock me.

With kind regards,

ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. You were edit warring, and you were blocked for edit warring. Please see Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming 'My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is not a valid defense." I'm sure someone more senior than me will have a look at your unblock request. In the meantime, you can argue your point on the talk page, but I suggest you try a more collaborative approach there. Also, I see you have made no fewer than 94 edits to the article, without a single edit summary--that also is part of the disruption I signaled. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir or madam,

I am new. I am learning the way. Please understand. I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I never read these warnings. Believe me. I edit this page on my mobile phone with a small screen. That must have been the reason. Please unblock me. Please help understand this platform & make good informative pages. Kindly forgive me for first time. I didn't ignored anything deliberately. Please unblock block me & help me understand talk section too. Your sincerely, ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I must have made about 15-20 edit summaries. Please do check.

WKR,

ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try a conversation with other editors on the talk page--with sources, so you can prove that you know what reliable sources are and how they are to be treated on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been. Let me finish writing the whole page first. PLEASE UNBLOCK ME. with kind regards, ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon@Drmies we are talking about my family here. Shirke is my family surname. I cannot accept wrong information showed on your website. Either unblock me or go change the following things. Read the long message I sent yesterday to Wikipedia below.

I would like to inform the false information displayed on your 2 webpages; Shirke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirke#Further_reading) & Sambhaji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji.

The given reference number 3 in the link is inaccurate on Shirke page & reference number 7 is inaccurate on Sambhaji page in sections “Capture & Execution” & "Accession”.

I can prove this to you with legitimate proofs regarding reference 3 & 7 on both webpages that talks about involvement of Shirke for the death of Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje. The referenced book writer by J. L. Mehta on both the webpages points that Soyarabai belonged to Shirke family before marriage (Page 47, History of Modern India 1707-1813). But in fact Soyarabai belonged to the Mohate family before the marriage & Soyarabai was was the younger sister of Maratha army chief Hambirao Mohite. This proof is present on your other webpage; Soyarabai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyarabai), which is also a well known fact in the Maratha’s history.

Please remove this reference from the both the webpages.

Next,

the Brahmins were involved in the murder of Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje, according to the records of Martin Fransisco in his dairy (page Mars 1689). The dairy remains in Paris museum after Martin’s death & also available online. Please find the copy of the French manuscript, which says "close Brambhins betrayed Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje, therefore Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje was caught & killed by Mughal Army". Shirke belonged to the ruling cast, which is Kshatriya cast & not Bramhin cast. Martin’s diary is the only proof the Government of Maharashtra has with them & the government has no proof against Shirke family on official records. Please find the Maharashtra Government's letter in Marathi language attached too. Therefore, I kindly request you to update the webpage Shirke & webpage Sambhaji, that Shirke didn’t betrayed Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje at any point. The close Bramhins were betrayed the Maratha emperor & involved in the murder of Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje. Close Brambhins had previously attempted to kill Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje; which is Annaji Datta & family.

Many thanks for your time. Please update the both the webpages ASAP. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times Jpgordon and I have suggested you discuss this on the article talk page. And if you think that after blocking you I am going to make your edits for you in that article, then you got another thing coming. Besides, if that is the proposed text, you need to do a much better job copy editing. And now I am going to see what you are doing in that other article; I hope I don't find more edit warring there. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a page number in the citation, and it's "Rue Bonaparte", not "Rua". Drmies (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is 33 page March 1689.

With kind regards,

ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use putting it here. Put it in the citation. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Done. Added the page 33 in all references. Thanks 🙏 Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies see you are kind! Please unblock me. I was innocent. I wasn't aware of these comments & talks. Please forgive me & allow me to edit my family page. Please understand, our ancestors gave blood for the empire, if they read these false information on Wikipedia, how they will feel! Please unblock me.

With kind regards,

ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

the purpose of blocking was to make sure the stability within community & content. If the user who is blocked, accepts to cooperate & help share valid information on Wikipedia for which the platform has been created then unnecessary humiliation is inappropriate that is extended blocking. When we learn new things we do mistakes that doesn't mean someone is doing it purposefully. Therefore please unblock me from editing Wikipedia page Shirke. I am looking forward to hearing from you. God never punish the innocent. Many thanks. With kind regards, ADR

Decline reason:

I see no benefit to Wikipedia from lifting the block from that one page. You can demonstrate your good intentions by suggesting edits on that article's talk page, and by editing the literally millions of other pages. Yamla (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2024 (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.

I think you need to take a close look at our conflict of interest guidelines. Do you think you are capable of editing with a neutral point of view regarding your family? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes, I am capable of editing the webpage Shirke. That quality called in Sanskrit "Sarvatrasamabudhaya", which means to maintain the ability to look at everyone with equal vision. That is the duty of King! Thanks. With kind regards, ADR. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Then the false information is being shared on this page; what shall we do about it? If I am ready to cooperate & I was unaware of the notifications there I found myself blocked. If I am not causing disruption then don't you think the block should be removed. Many thanks for your reply. With kind regards, ADR Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]