User talk:Meethamonkey

Meethamonkey, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Meethamonkey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Bharatpur State. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@alivardi - it seems to me the dispute here is which author you have chosen to believe . Anybody who has studied indian history - from a. Reputed source like - Satish chandra , Bipin Chandra etc. Would know that this Wikipedia page is promoting hearsay and mythology rather than presenting a fact based version of history . Also in the history section we clearly see that first the subject is lineage , then an abrupt jump to Rajaram and the again an abrupt jump to a dispute in the Bharatpur state , where as there is no mention of Churaman Jat who was responsible for establishing the state in 18 th century when the Mughals had become weak . Also there is no mention on how the kingdom was established.

So it seems to me , that i should tell you , that the changes you are making are malicious in nature and inaccurate promoting theories of fringe historians , and you should refrain from inserting false information in such an unsystematic way. Meethamonkey (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ alivardi please don't remove the relevant information I had put in , regarding how the Bharatpur state came into being . I hope you understand that no censorship does not mean that you can present in accurate information as true . Also since you know that there is no censorship, I fail to understand why you would remove my edits for which I had provided citations from the page ? Meethamonkey (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@alivardi you can be assured that my additions are in good faith as well as factual , the book I have cited is not only by a reputed source but also widely available , unlike authors like ram Pande . As an editor , I would also expect the same good faith from you. Thankyou . Meethamonkey (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith means that you should have the assumption that other editors are acting in good faith and that they are not being intentionally malicious. Posting messages such as this

the changes you are making are malicious in nature and inaccurate promoting theories of fringe historians

makes it very difficult for editors to have constructive discussions with each other.
Alivardi (talk)

Thank you for the definition , however your repeated attempts to edit this page, despite various people telling you of the false nature of your edits, clearly suggest malice , Also hypocrisy since by removing my and other edits that are factually accurate or remedial in nature , you are showing bad faith to everyone . Meethamonkey (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Alivardi (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@alivardi stop you intimidation, you are not fooling anyone . Meethamonkey (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Alivardi (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@alivardi - I thought you were the administrator?? , Isn't that what you were t Pretending to be when you were threatening me ?. Anyways you are too cute . I have seen you other edits too . Meethamonkey (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? That line seemed to say that quotation not verified and also it doesn't make much historical sense, because of various reasons. Meethamonkey (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had cited multiple sources , also the books I have cited are more than a 95 years old , so how can there be copywrite violation ?

Also the page suggests that Jawahar Singh was defeated whereas various sources state that both sides claimed victory , where as Jawahar Singh suffered major losses to his artillery and baggage , many of the Jaipur nobles died including dalil Singh and his people . Also Jawahar Singh was able to return . The article also falsely claims a second battle , of which I have found no trace.

This all can be found in the history of the jats by k.r.qanungo , he has also cited judanath sarkar in various places although I could not find his work .

Also the credibility of judanath sarkar as an impartial author is doubtful as he has been accused of flattery and his work was said to be questionable by his own publisher . . However my only attempt was to provide an unbiased view of the events rather than the undue glorification of one side that existed on the page .

I don't care about the block , as I know the truth will ultimately be written here , also I see all these users are connected and I am a new user , and I din't know what course of action had to be taken , so they have targeted me in a systematic way to get me blocked .Meethamonkey (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't care about the block, there is no need to address this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2020 (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.

😁😁😁😁 khush rehne ko ghalib ye khayal hi acha hai . 😁😁 How pathetic . Maze me raho . Meethamonkey (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel panic

Battle of Mandoli is rewritten in a neutral manner now by me. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 👍 Meethamonkey (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha Heba thanks for the edits you have put in ,I had seen your previous edits before and was assured that you will not be biased. but there are still regular malicious edits , which may clearly be considered vandalisation. Is there any way to ensure that this does not occur repeatedly . Thanks . Meethamonkey (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha just to clarify , I meant malicious edits by other accounts .( Usually anonymous ) Meethamonkey (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Maonda and Mandholi has been added to WP:RFPP.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be panic and never engaze in edit wars.It is good to discuss on talk page with editors who hold opposite view.And if ips are vandalising you can put complaint at WP:AIV but do this if u are not an edit warrior.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Meethamonkey (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Battle of Maonda and Mandholi, you may be blocked from editing. Jv0314 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your assumption of disruptive editing by looking at the previous edits . I am preventing vandalization by anonymous accounts. Rather than making malicious edits . Please check . Meethamonkey (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]