Since you are doing a ton of research/work on this article, you know you do not have to keep the "Phase" parts of the article. If your research gives you reason(s) to change or remove it please do! That part was left over from when it was originally created, so it may need to be scrapped. Anyway, keep up the good work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I have reason to change it in the future I will. But I believe it is appropriate for now since the war was mostly on and off and phases seem appropriate to keep it as of now. @Kansas Bear Thanks for letting me know though. Noorullah21 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Mr. Noorullah21 - As Salamu Alaykum - I see you created this page. Well done on it. One fix you need to look at is the date which do not match. In the opening paragraph you have 2 May 1809 but in infobox you have 3 May 1809. I tried to fix by looking at the source at the end of first paragraph but didn't find the date on source. But instead, on page 174 it says that Shah Shuja left for jalalabad in June 1809 to confront Shah Mahmud and few weeks later Shah Shuja was defeated in Nimla. You might want to look at this and fix the date. Maybe make it June 1809 instead. MehmoodS (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph heading still shows "The Battle of Nimla took place on 2 May, 1809". Also I would say that, don't give any particular day like 2 May or 3 July, as it is not mentioned. You can change it to "June -July 1809" or say "between June and July 1809". Because few weeks after June can be 4 or more weeks which can surpass month of June. If you want I can add the fix. Let me know. Good day to you. MehmoodS (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert this close. I note that you were involved in the discussion. I also note that your close that treats the discussion as a vote, and that discussion was still ongoing at the time of the close. For all these reasons, it is not appropriate for you to close the discussion at this time.
@KahastokIf you want the discussion to be opened, sure. I just closed it because I thought that it was appropriately concluded via consensus with its clear opinion for option A. (which is just following conensus rules in general if it seems that its one sided) Noorullah21 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your wondering on what is occurring, the user is a blocked IP under a user HaughtonBrit whose report against him was confirmed and he was blocked. He keeps sockpuppeting. I undid myself and readded the talk as of now. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noorullah21, I saw your post at WP:Third opinion, where I sometimes volunteer. One important rule for posting there is that the request be phrased neutrally. Specifically, the page says to post: "a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants."
I felt the request you posted could be phrased more neutrally, so I made a change. Please take a look and let me know if the new version still accurately describes the dispute. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You have the right to remove messages and warnings from your Talk page, but each time you do so, you are posting the same comment at the top: "Feel free to discuss anything with me here." Frankly, this is nonsense because you are obviously unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. The best practice at Wikipedia is for you to respond to legitimate posts. Failing that, you should not remove them, but rather set up archiving so that on some periodic basis messages are placed on special archive pages. If that too is unacceptable to you, then remove them, but don't post disingenuous, false comments when doing so. Such behavior can be construed as a failure to collaborate with others, and that is something that all of us must do if you want to retain your editing privileges.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am a bit confused on what you mean here, nobody has come to debate me yet or talk to me about anything, I only removed certain pagers like warnings, so I really don't get what you mean, there is nothing to archive as well other then just ambugiuent link warnings, or other bot stuff, you can clearly see that if you check view history. Bbb23 -Noorullah21
Talk pages are not just for "debate", but for responding to other editors, which includes responding to warnings. The most obvious example is this warning left by administrator Drmies. It also appears to me that you are not new to Wikipedia. What other accounts have you used? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to make it seem as if I have alted before? I have not used any other account on Wikipedia except some other one named Noorullah something that I forgot the password to in like 2019, so I made this one in 2020 and have been editing since. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I have not used any other account, the edit Administrator Drmies had reverted was also self explanatory, I was editing a page but had to cut it off amongst revamping it (which is what I do) Noorullah21 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop Posting false messages on other people's TALK page
You will be reported for false posts and misuse them for your amusement. Just like this one below you posted on my TALK page:
Pardon? I put you on the noticeboard for edit warring, I do not understand what you mean for false posts? This is not for amusement or misuse whatsoever, read the noticeboard please as there is currently 2 transgressing reports against you. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danre98 He sent message first and then reported because the report wasn't available when he sent the message. Also he is misusing the noticeboard because there has been no 3RR within 24 hrs as the policy states.AtmaramU (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might have happened. I'm not going to get involved over whether the noticeboard is being misused, but I'll note that the WP:3RR policy states Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times (emphasis on "with or without 3RR being breached"). Even if there hasn't been more than 3 reverts for a user in a 24 hour period, the spirit of the law is also important. —Danre98(talk^contribs)21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Did you check it properly? the person did revert three times. Once on the 24th of august, and twice on the 25th of August. Check the third anglo afghan war page and check its review history, you will be able to see it, please reconsider your option on the case of "no result". Noorullah21 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear, terse perhaps, but clear. It doesn't say "no result"; it says "no violations", which coupled with my comment at the bottom of the report, says precisely what happened, or what didn't happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HaughtonBrit Hey friend!, so I wanted to talk about your revert to the more credible version and why I reverted it. So, I assume you reverted it because you believe it is somewhat undersourced with roughly 1-3 sources only being used in most, I acknowledge that and am adding on more now, including information. The Reason for said Revamp on Timur Shah was because the old page was very lacking in detail and skipped out on a lot of info, I have also seen your edits of removing duplicates and random spaces, so I will also try to implement that now. If you have anything to say, please reply so we can talk. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Buddy, please leave the changes i made as I went through all the sources and updated the content as the source states. Its recommended that all sentences are supported by references. I will revert. Also looks like you ended up creating duplicates. I will fix it. HaughtonBrit (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HaughtonBrit Hey, so I wanted to talk to you about the Second Anglo afghan war, what I am talking about is that Afghanistan wasn't exactly a protectorate, it was a protected state, "British protected states represented a more loose form of British suzerainty, where the local rulers retained absolute control over the states' internal affairs and the British exercised control over defence and foreign affairs.", the article in British Protectorate also phrases this, so I believe it is more appropriate to put it as a British protected state rather then a protectorate, since protectorates were usually under more presumable influence as well, what are your thoughts? Noorullah21 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It even says as well, if you scroll down the "British Protectorate article" it brings you to "List of former British protected states
As protected states, the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted.[", Afghanistan is also included in this list, so I believe it should thus be included as a BRITISH PROTECTED STATE, not a protectorate more appropriately. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The references on the article and various historians state British Protectorate of Afghanistan till 1919.
Here is the line from the reference.
“In this treaty, the Amir of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.”
So you have to stick to reference as proof. As far as links on other articles on Wikipedia, those are not reliable just like Wikipedia states that it’s articles can be plain wrong or vandalized especially since anyone can edit at any time.
Hi Noorullah21! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Third Battle of Panipat that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Third Battle of Panipat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He noted that the use of flags is discouraged, however there are exceptions to this such as “Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions.”, also I replaced rohillas with the Amb State if you do not mind about that since that is more appropriate. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark noted WP:V is a core policy on Wikipedia and no one should be violating it. You need to cite reliable sources which note the combatants to have had these flags during the time-span of the war.
I wanted to ask if you know much about the 'Kingdom of Cabool/Cabul/Cabaul'? When looking at historic maps I notice the area of present Afghanistan bore this name. This book from 1829 describes this place called 'Cabul'. But how does this fit in with the post-1823 Emirate of Afghanistan? See this book as well of that time, describing 'Cabool' as a country. --WR23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Weaveravel Excellent question thank you for asking. So during the period after the Durrani Empire collapsed, there was three split nations, Herat (1793-1863), Principality of Qandahar and Kabul itself, Dost Mohammad Khan ruled over Kabul. However by 1849, he was moving to centralize the kingdoms around him, and in 1855, Dost Mohammad Khan took the Principality of Qandahar, which ruled over much of modern Kandahar and southern afghanistan. While Herat was conquered in 1863, I hope this solves your question, if you need anything else ask below.
(in summary before dost mohammad khan was unifying the nation and it was split, the place he ruled over was called Kabul/Cabool, or however you say it. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clear answer, it makes sense now. This definitely needs mentioning at the very least, if not its own article. Look at Emirate of Afghanistan, there is not a single mention about the Herat/Kandahar/Kabul principalities and their "unity" in that article, nor in Afghanistan. --WR19:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me and User Kailanmapper are friends, and we plan to heavily expand pages about the history of Afghanistan, I am mostly starting off rulers of the time and going up. As you could probably see with Timur Shah Durrani and so on. You should probably contact us on discord if you have it for more information. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear. I have also been active with heavily expanding Afghanistan articles, but my knowledge/contributions are mostly limited to Culture, Geography, Architecture etc instead of its (pre-20th century) History. I'm glad to see that such history articles are being made and expanded. --WR19:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And following on what I mentioned before, this vital information has surprisingly little to no mention in Wikipedia. I have made this addition on Afghanistan for this. --WR 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Noorullah21 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
