User talk:Noorullah21/2024

A barnstar for you!

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for your commitment to quality content. Imperial[AFCND] 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Thank you for the barnstar. :) Noorullah (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Babić

Hi, thanks for taking part in the discussion but can you please sign your comment as it isn't showing, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 Fixed, thanks for letting me know. Noorullah (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

The article Khalji Revolution you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Khalji Revolution for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious articles

With your expertise in Khilji era, can you look at this Dubious article Khilji-Mithila War. Take a look at Battle of Thane as well to review. It is another dubious article. This person Shakib ul hassan who is going on a rampage to write dubious articles is falsely doing this to publicize Hindu dynasties. 24.154.162.189 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the article

Hello as you reverted my edit in this article 1975 Panjshir Valley uprising stating in summary edit that its not political victory. however thats not true as i have stated reasons and citations with a discussion in talk page see the talk page :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1975_Panjshir_Valley_uprising Rahim231 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further question about Abdul Wahab (Mughal historian)

Hi Noorullah21, hope you're doing well. I wanted to continue our conversation from your previous autopatrolled request. Thank you for updating Abdul Wahab (Mughal historian) with the Rahim (1961) source. I wanted to read more about the subject so I got that book, History of the Afghans in India, A.D. 1545-1631, from my library, but I'm not seeing Wahab mentioned on page 277 or in the index. Instead, page 277 in my book discusses Khan Jahan Lodi. Would it be possible for you to provide me with a scan or screenshot from your version of this source (via email would be great)? DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek Hi, I'm not sure how to send via email, but heres the link I used it from. [1]. On page 277, it states
"Abdul Wahab - Intikhab-I-Jahangir Shahi. *Abdul Wahab was a companion of Jahangir and died in 1622-3 ( lo32 H. ). Being close to the court, he gives some valuable information of the reign of Jahangir, ho manuscript of his work is available. A few extracts of the work have been translated in 3311 iot, vol. VI." Noorullah (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you again! I think his Ph.D. thesis (1954) is a bit different from the published version (1961) so I'll go and adjust that in the article when I have some time. Happy editing. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Noorullah21! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:53, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

The 1933 History of Ceylon

Hello! Thank you for your work adding sources to articles! I was looking at some of your edits for the drive (getting my bearings to potentially review some) and I noticed that you seem to be working through a 1933 History of Ceylon to cite various years of reigns. That general workflow is a great idea, but 1933 and the The Christian Literature Society for India & Africa both raise red flags for me in terms of reliability. (There's an essay touching on similar problems for sources about India at WP:RAJ.) Just citing the years ruled seems fine, but you might want to look for a more recent and less explicitly imperialist source. I think it would also be helpful to readers if you cited the publication year accurately, as I did here. Thanks again for your efforts and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn Yeah I didn't want to use it for any main information itself because of issues like WP:RAJ which I am informed of, was just using it for the reign of rulers mostly. Definitely will also look for some better sources where possible and try to include the publication year properly, thanks.
Not sure why it was 2004, I used the automatic citation thing and just added in the page prefix where needed. Noorullah (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're on top of things! I do agree that it's fine for the years you were using it for, just wanted to check in in case. Thanks again for your work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of WP:FEB24 contributions

Hi, I was reviewing your contributions to the drive. I removed the reference you added in Mayyit: you linked a self-published fiction work, which is not a reliable source. Please only use reliable sources in the references you use. Let me know if you need any help. Broc (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broc Hi Broc, I added the source because I believe it didn't infringe on using it, however thank you for raising your concern. I'll try to find an alternative source for it. Noorullah (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is mostly on the fact it is a fictional work. I don't think we should use a novel as a reliable source. Thanks for looking into this! Broc (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863)

Information icon Hello, Noorullah21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

Citation Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Noorullah21 for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalji Revolution


Concern regarding Draft:Afghan conflict (1793–1863)

Information icon Hello, Noorullah21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan conflict (1793–1863), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan-Sikh Wars

Hello buddy. Some user who goes by the name of “historian” which is not a verified user was the last to edit the page’s result to “Sikh Victory” with no sourced provided and therefore undid your revision. After he did this, the page was altered to extended protection by another user who has a long history of editing Wikipedia but I believe he did not notice the sudden change prior to the extended protection coming into effect.

Can you please kindly revert the result to what you had done for the page prior to “historian”s edit warring tactic as your change for the result was accurate. I cannot change the result back to military stalemate as I don’t have authority.

Regards,

Pathaan Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article's result to the version prior to when Historian2325 and Dunki appeared, however, Noorullah, if you feel "Military stalemate" is a more accurate result, please change it to so, as I know you're much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathaan2024@Suthasianhistorian8 I was just changing it to its original result. Should we move over to the page’s talk page to further discuss? Noorullah (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Msg

Hy Noorullah, I have Left a msg for you in wikimedia Commons. Can you check it please DeepstoneV (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have Send the Links to you in Wikimedia, please Kindly check DeepstoneV (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why you proposed deletion of 2024 Pakistan-Afghanistan skirmishes

It meets the notability criteria and it you check it out it's completely different and goes into detail about the ongoing round of skirmishes and it isn't a replica, you yourself can check it out for yourself Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Waleed Ukranian: No need to worry, the community will determine whether the article should be retained or not. Keep up your good work but please ensure that reliable sources are cited and refrain from using blogs/forums like defence.pk etc. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you see that article no blog post has been cited, most citations are news articles and pretty reliable ones at that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waleed Ukranian: But the news articles are hosted on a unreliable website. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera, DW, Dawn, AP etc are unreliable first Time hearing so Waleed Ukranian (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waleed Ukranian: I am talking about defence.pk such as this. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this article there's no citation of defence.pk you can check that's 1950 Afghan invasion of Balochistan and I think that 1950 Afghan invasion of Balochistan be renamed and transferred to 1950-51 Afghan invasions of Pakistan so that Invasion of Khyber, Radio Kabul campaign, dropping of propaganda leaflets and arms supply to Faqir of Ipi etc could be mentioned, then it'd be notable enough and I'll cite more sources for that article Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping

Assalamu Alaikum Noorullah, Could you please create accurate maps for notable Muslim Sultanates like the Hyderabad State of Nizam and the Golconda Sultanate? The current maps in their articles are highly inaccurate and smaller than the actual ones. DeepstoneV (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeepstoneV Walaykum as-salam, Yeah I can try to work on them soon. Noorullah (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Jazak Allah, Akhi. By the way, the Nizam Map in that atlas also includes the maps of Awadh and Bengal subah, so it would be better to create a single map incorporating all three." DeepstoneV (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Sultanate

The flag was completely sourced and used in the previous versions of the article. Flag is a vital element and should not be removed. Thanks for your understanding. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AimanAbir18plus The flag was not sourced at all. The fact that it was in previous revisions doesn't matter, it was removed because it was for all sakes and purposes, made up without a source. You were also reverted by another user who states the same thing. [2] Noorullah (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts?

Hello @Noorullah21, I have seen that you have some experience related to Maratha-related topics and so wanted to ask your opinion regarding Talk:Maratha Empire#Requested move 17 April 2024. PadFoot2008 12:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Hi. I’ll check it out when I have time, thanks for letting me know about this discussion! Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Noorullah21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow it down

Hey @Noorullah21. I'd like to ask you to slow it down a bit with your new page reviewing. We typically wouldn't expect several quality reviews in a single minute from a new new page reviewer, it signals that due diligence is likely not being performed. Pinging @Nove Prime Novem Linguae, as I know this is something they sometimes monitor. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidently pinged the wrong person... fixing by pinging @Novem Linguae. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Sure.
The method I usually do is I go onto the NPP and open a ton of tabs of new pages of topics I think would be relatively easy or things I’d like to patrol (i.e Military history, Football related, etc). Then begin patrolling in relatively quick succession — But if you think this might signify that it could not be patrolled properly quality-wise, I’ll slow it down. Noorullah (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do the same as well actually. But it's concerning from our point of view that you might not have exercised proper care (I haven't done a deep dive myself yet, just noticed you had reviewed over 200 articles in the last day). So, please just make sure there's no appropriate tags to add, take your time, and make sure we're getting it right :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Of course, I understand your concern since I am just a new page patroller as well. From now on I’ll take it slower, thank you. Noorullah (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating WP:GNG when an article doesn't qualify for WP:SNG is what can take a lot of time for many articles, especially borderline or poorly sourced ones, because it involves opening each citation and evaluating it until you find enough that pass GNG. And then if you don't find enough passing sources, doing a WP:BEFORE search and evaluating those sources too. So please be careful that you are including a GNG evaluation in your workflow, where appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghurids

The article is slowly becmonig an iranian advertisement. First there was no mention of tajiks in the opening but instead " unknown origins" and now as you have seen, some sources is changed to " most " sources, despite the fact that nearly all -- 2023 and 2024 sources call them Afghans. You are active there it is your moral duty to take a stance! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is - even- from andre wink whom is qoated in the article.
"Ghaznavids and Ghurids , and the contemporary Afghans- artillery . Between 1508 and 1519 he received his first supply of guns and cannon"
Counting ghurids as Afghans in his latest 2024 book. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say the Ghurids were of Afghan origin.
Now watch the IP ignore this blatant fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more, by Wink. Sorry for blowing up your talk page Noorullah21.
And surprise, surprise. The IP did ignore the two quotes. LMAO. Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reliability of the references

I've asked an administrator for the Wikipedia policy regarding the use of snippet sources, as well as opened a thread at RSN for the reliability of Yogendra Mishra. I would appreciate if you stop editing these articles for a while till some consensus is achieved – I don't want this matter to end up at WP:ANI. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sur empire

Hey I added a small sentence into the sur empire page to clarify that the empire emerged out of the Bengal Sultante. I was wondering why you deleted. It stumped me and a few others so now that I actually understand what happened I would like to put that piece of info on the wiki page. 82.44.0.125 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're adding is nonsense nor is supported by other sources. No sources state that the Sur Empire emerged from the Bengal Sultanate. Especially as it's capital was based in Bihar, where Sher Shah was first ruler. Noorullah (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bengal sultanate was in control of bihar. Sher shah emerged out of bihar and took the rest of the bengal lands. 82.44.0.125 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bengal Sultanate was not in control of Bihar, stop adding nonsense unto the page. Noorullah (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Noorullah21 for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HaughtonBrit SPI

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that Festivalfalcon873 and Alvin1783 were both blocked as obvious socks. It might also be helpful, in case you nominate any other articles that involve the Sikhs, to disclose in the nomination statement that these AFDs are being targeted by a sockmaster using numerous accounts to vote and twist the result in his favour. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Southasianhistorian8 Sounds good thanks, nice work by the way. Noorullah (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the DCWC!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Noorullah21! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

  • Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
  • Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
  • Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
  • New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
  • Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend

Do you need to me to verify any historic afghanistan flags, i'm pretty good at it 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Khalji Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

The article Khalji Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Khalji Revolution for comments about the article, and Talk:Khalji Revolution/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Noorullah21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lentini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCWC submissions declined

Hey Noorullah21, thanks for participating in the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest! I have declined your submissions for the GA and DYK nominations of Sher Shah Suri as they are both too old to be awarded points. Only successful nominations from within the contest period can be submitted for points. I have also declined your DYK nomination of Khalji Revolution; per the scoring rules, DYK appearances are only eligible for points when they are newly created or 5× expanded. The successful GA nomination for that article has been accepted. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863)

Hello, Noorullah21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Afghan Civil War".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Anglo-Afghan War

Hi there,

I've noticed we've come to a disagreement over the infobox for the Second Anglo-Afghan War. For the sake of brevity, I'll just state my points here, and then you can respond below.

You changed the infobox's result from "British victory" to "Afzalid-British victory" then "British-Afzalid victory". At the same time, you also changed the infobox so the Afzalids were above the UK (implying that they were a more prominent combatant in the conflict than the British). With all due respect, this is simply not an accurate reading on the conflict. The Afzalids were not more prominent in the conflict than the British, and there was not a single engagement in the war (to the best of my knowledge) that they were involved in; certainly none in the many pages we have on the war's battles anyhow. Your edits make the conflict look like an Afghan civil war that the British were only marginally involved in, which is simply not true. I will note that it is definitely questionable that you insisted I justify my decision to revert some of your edits even though you provided no explanation for adding them yourself. Though it is true that the Afzalids fought on the side of the British, they (and Abdur Rahman Khan) were definitely the junior partner to the British and not the other way around. Secondly, "British-Afzalid" victory implies that the two combatants were equal in terms of their involvement in the war, which is again not true. Take a look at the page for the Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue. It involved an equal Anglo-Dutch force on one side, and so is correctly described as an "Anglo-Dutch victory". Now look at the page for Second Battle of El Alamein: even though nine different nations took part, most of the Allied troops in the battle were part of the British Empire, so the infobox described the battle as a "British victory", which should be the case for the Second Anglo-Afghan War as well. This was a change to a long standing consensus on the page, and to the best of my knowledge neither source cited in the infobox's result section describes the war as a "British-Afzalid victory". That being said, I'm sure you have your reasons and am interested in hearing them out.

Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your example used for Barfleur and El Alamein here have different reasonings.
Firstly -- El Alamein was full of British colonies and subordinate nations, while as you mentioned, Barfleur was an equal designation.
The issue here is that Abdur Rahman Khan was not a subordinate, nor as you claimed, a "junior partner".
By looking at sources;
""Britain had been fortunate to escape the ‘rat trap’ without suffering the kind of humiliation that it experienced in the First Afghan War. Even so, the invasion was hardly a resounding success. Cavagnari and three other British officials along with their escort had been slaughtered, and the raising of the siege of Sherpur had been touch and go. The defeat at Maiwand and the siege of Kandahar were further dents to British military prestige. The intervention was the death knell for Forward Policy supporters and cost Disraeli an election, Lytton his Viceroyship and the British Exchequer £17 million, three times the original estimate. General Roberts eventually emerged as a British hero, but the real winner was ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan, who finally won the struggle for the throne that had begun with the death of Dost Muhammad Khan nearly two decades before."" (Jonathan Lee pg. 383)
-- Abdur Rahman had been engaged with his own struggle for the throne for the 2 decades prior, and was even initially hostile to the British until they sought him out as a suitable candidate for the throne of Afghanistan.
Not long after especially in Abdur Rahman's reign, he was extremely hostile to the British, seeking to declare a holy war on them in numerous instances, and breaking the Protected state status. (Lee 384-397)
Perhaps you are right, however, that overplacing the Afzalids in the infobox at least, is not the correct move. But I think the result parameter is where this should differ, with it clearly being a "British-Afzalid" victory. -- The Afzalids being a faction who were intermittently fighting for the throne of Afghanistan for over 20 years.
For a background on the Afzalids, see the background section on the Second Anglo-Afghan War page for generally who they were. background section link here.
A summary explanation can also be read in the aftermath section. @DonBeroni Noorullah (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've read over your reply and agree with many of your points. However, there is just one which I find issue with. While your quote from Lee does indeed expound at length over British failures during the war, it makes little mention of the involvement in Abdur Rahman's Afzalid forces in the 1878-1880 conflict. Did they participate in the war's engagements in any significant measure? If so, then I would agree that "British-Afzalid victory" or "Anglo-Afzalid victory" is appropriate in the infobox. Otherwise, I must demur. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DonBeroni Yes, while the British were invading Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman invaded Northern Afghanistan -- specifically Afghan Turkestan, Badakhshan, This is described by Lee between (Page 376-378). Or also in the Second Anglo-Afghan War section I linked here. Noorullah (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it appears we have come to an understanding here. I'll change the infobox's result section to Anglo-Afzalid victory. Please let me know if there are other points of disagreement between us. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DonBeroni Nope, that's all, thanks for working this out! Noorullah (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello Noorullah, hope you're well. Can you mark Pokrovsk offensive as reviewed? Right now an internet search gives info on the offensive's order of battle but not the offensive itself. Thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche Done. Noorullah (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Noorullah21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Khalji Revolution

Hello! Your submission of Khalji Revolution at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu & Marata sock

Assalamualaikum Brother, User:GroovyGrinster is sock of User:WhiteReaperPM. He has same editing style, creates articles which has maratha victory like WhitereaperPM. Please Ban him he is making made-up battles against muslims. 2409:4052:4D9B:3A5C:F6FF:952:24D1:9593 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check this out. Noorullah (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I’ve been pretty suspicious about this user myself. Seem new, and I remember it looked like he was vote stacking with another account on the Mughal dynasty page. As soon as your vote was entered, he came in with his own. The other account im suspicious of is Special:Contributions/Chauthcollector, which apparently, another IP called out for being a sockpuppet of Groovygrinster. He may possibly have other accounts I haven’t looked into. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCWC September update

The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:

Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article Athanasios Sakellarios

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at List of people from Greece article.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Hello @Noorullah21, since you have a lot of experience in Afghan-related topics, I wanted ask whether this flag

is actually sourced or is WP:OR. The source provided on the commons description page mentions nothing about this flag being used by the Durranis at all. This flag is being used (possibly incorrectly) to represent the flag of the Afghan Empire on battle infoboxes on Wikipedia, and we need to remove this if it is OR. PadFoot (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 It's WP:OR, use of it should be removed. It's an old flag I thought to be the Durranis a long time ago, but in reality it has 0 correlation. Noorullah (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21, Thanks, that's what I had thought as well. I am going to start removing all uses of it from Wikipedia and mention it as fictitious on its commons description page as well. PadFoot (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you know what standard Ahmad Shah Durrani actually used? Was it the green Herat one? Or did he not have a fixed standard? PadFoot (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 There was unfortunately no records of an actual standard used by the Durranis. The Herat one, as you might know, was only used by the Durranis when they solely ruled the Principality of Herat.
Per Iranica: "Almost nothing is known about the flags of Afghanistan during the reign of the Sadōzay dynasty and the early decades of the Moḥammadzay dynasty." [3] Noorullah (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21, alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Afghan wars

Hi there @Noorullah21. I noticed your edit to the Third Anglo-Afghan War page and your comment on the talk page. We've had constructive conversations here before, so I thought it best if I messaged you here again before I edited any article pages regarding topics of mutual interest. Your yourself stated on the article's talk page that describing the war as an "Afghan victory" on the infobox could be controversial. Given the possibility of further dispute regarding this, what about following in the footsteps of the Anglo-Dutch Wars pages? Essentially, what occurred there was that on the infoboxes of all four wars (the first, second, third, fourth), only the treaty which ended the war was included in the "results" section. This avoided the constant edit wars which plagued the articles, as none of the four wars resulted in a conclusive (meaning decisive in military+political sense) victory in either side. Bearing this in mind, what do you think of changing the infobox results of the second and third Anglo-Afghan wars to simply the treaty (i.e. the Treaty of Gandamak for the second war, and the Treaty of Rawalpindi for the third). Given that neither war resulted in a decisive, conclusive victory for one side, such changes could prevent bouts of edit warring in the future. Obviously, since the first Anglo-Afghan war did not end in a treaty it can be kept as is. Thoughts? DonBeroni (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DonBeroni Hi Don, thanks for reaching out to me, I’ll get back to you in a bit when I’m available. Noorullah (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DonBeroni Hi don, my thoughts on this are this:
I think the Second Anglo-Afghan War was fairly decisive in a British (and their Afghan allies) victory, other than toward the end of the war (which is a longer story).
This then brings me to ask why would we only change the Third war to such if the other two have distinct results, especially when we have sources that accurately describe it. The reason I described the infobox change on the Third Anglo-Afghan War as possibly controversial was because it was long-standing on the other way, and it had been a topic of contention for a while (although mostly from IP editors, or others...
Ultimately, I think it's best to keep it the way it is for now. Let me know what you think! Noorullah (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I think your arguments are perfectly reasonable, and I support your edit to the Third Anglo-Afghan War page as it currently stands, though you may have to watch out for IP trolls and edit warriors :P DonBeroni (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! have a great day. Noorullah (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Advice

Hello @Noorullah21, you have a lot of experience in these topics, so I wanted to ask whether on historical pages related to Afghan dynasties and historical people, should Afghan be targeted to Afghan (ethnonym) or Pashtun people, or rather should Pashtun be used as the descriptive term here? For example, such as in "The Lodi dynasty was an Afghan dynasty that ...". What do you prefer usually? PadFoot (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 I typically put the ethnonym. As historically, Afghan was a designated term for Pashtuns. Thus for the Lodi Dynasty, I'd put the ethononym. Noorullah (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21, thanks. Usually that's what I do as well. In a historical context, I think Afghan (ethnonym) should be used for Pashtun dynasties or people, as it is the historical name. What do you think about the Suri Empire lead though? PadFoot (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 The Sur Empire lead seems fine to me, it also uses the ethnonym. Noorullah (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21, Apologies, I confused it with something else. Also, this got me wondering which one is correct, "Sur" or "Suri"? The rulers were called "Suri", but the empire was "Sur"? PadFoot (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 The empire appears to be “Sur” but individuals of the dynasty used the name Suri. Noorullah (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21, alright, thanks a lot. I would not bother you any more :) Have a good day! PadFoot (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Afghan conflict (1793–1863)

Hello, Noorullah21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Afghan conflict".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durrani vassals

Hello @Noorullah21, I was wondering if Amb, Sindh and Rohilkhand were vassals of the Durrani empire in 1761, perhaps you could provide some insight into this? PadFoot (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Amb and Sindh were vassals, while the Rohillas under Najib ad-Dawlah allied with the Afghans/were made Durrani governors. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 For further relevance if you're interested -- I have a large spreadsheet of the History of Afghanistan region spreading from 1747-1863 in events including much of Northern India until 1793. Here: [4] Noorullah (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The spreadsheet is an absolutely brilliant source of information. It's extremely useful, I'll keep it handy. Thanks again! PadFoot (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Khalji Revolution

On 24 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khalji Revolution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Khalji Revolution, Sultan Qaiqabad was wrapped in a carpet and thrown into the Yamuna river? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khalji Revolution. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Khalji Revolution), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hello @Noorullah21, I am requesting your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection. PadFoot (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notifying you about the RM at Maratha Confederacy. PadFoot (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will check it out later. @PadFoot2008 Noorullah (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Noorullah21? PadFoot (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done it. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab of Punjab

Hello @Noorullah21, the article on Adina Beg was sometime recently edited to say that he was apparently recognised as 'Nawab of Punjab' by the Emperor. A Google scholar search yielded me no results for 'Nawab of Punjab', and Google Books only gives only 3 citations (one of which is being used as the source of this claim by the editor). This claim, to me, appears extremely dubious; what do you think? PadFoot (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 From what I know, Adina Beg was the governor of the Punjab originally under Mughal rule, but he eventually asserted himself as de-facto independent.
I'm not sure if his actual title was "Nawab", I haven't seen any source for this. It could be changed to "Viceroy" instead, since I see Hari Ram Gupta describing him as such here: (pg 323) [5] Noorullah (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun population

The user on pashtun population is persisting and edit waring with you and one other user. I think you should ask for his account to be blocked. Because he is not listening. 178.232.246.100 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Bronze Belt Buckle – 3rd place Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; Silver Belt Buckle – 2nd place Tuvalu BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Gold Belt Buckle – 1st place Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, Tuvalu BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! India Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asking help

Hello Sir, I have checked your contributions. You have contributed to many pages regarding Afghan ruler and people. Do you know any source which has information about Jahan Khan commander of Ahmed shah Durrani? Jassu712 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jassu712 Sorry, not sure if I have anything toward that. Noorullah (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh okay sorry for disturbance Jassu712 (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Daud Shah Bahmani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daud Shah Bahmani you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Daud Shah Bahmani

The article Daud Shah Bahmani you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Daud Shah Bahmani for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sack of Delhi (1757)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sack of Delhi (1757) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sack of Delhi (1757)

The article Sack of Delhi (1757) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757) and Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sack of Delhi (1757)

The article Sack of Delhi (1757) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757) for comments about the article, and Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Please update user script installation

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sher Shah Suri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gauda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Information icon Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khalji Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sack of Delhi (1757)

On 22 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sack of Delhi (1757), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that between 30 and 300 million rupees' worth of goods were plundered during the Afghan sack of Delhi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sack of Delhi (1757). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sack of Delhi (1757)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Daud Shah Bahmani

The article Daud Shah Bahmani you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Daud Shah Bahmani for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalji Revolution

Hi Noorullah21, I've been thinking about Khalji Revolution and my comments at the FAC - if other people have also mentioned the "antiquated" language then perhaps there is an issue there but it can certainly be learnt from and overcome. I'm a native English speaker and would be happy to do an informal or formal peer review, if you are interested and if you wanted to do that before returning to FAC. Or do the same with another article, if you have decided to switch focus to that one? My motivation here is that I really do want to see a more diverse set of articles on the main page to counteract systemic bias. Hope this message finds you well - Mujinga (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga Sure, I’d love your help. Noorullah (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! How would you like to proceed? With comments on the talkpage or by opening a formal peer review? Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either work, I think talk page would be better. @Mujinga Noorullah (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll put some comments on the talk page then - I'll wait until I have a decent chunk of time, should be in the next few days Mujinga (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the results

The British won the first and third anglo-afghan-wars militarily(in battle) and in the third war the British repelled the afghans and kept the durand line.That was from the articles themselves. Panekasos (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the results

I could also provide sources that say that the British won militarily Panekasos (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jamrud edit

Hi. I noticed that you undid some revisions to the Battle of Jamrud page, stating that the sources you reverted weren't WP:RS/WP:HISTRS sources. However, the source is from the University of California, and is a secondary source. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because I don't want you and @HerakliosJulianus breaking WP:3RR or getting into an edit war. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is from the Punjab University and R.R.Sethi R. R. SETHI, M. A., PhD. also worked in the History Department of it his work has been supervised by G. L, CHOPRA, M. A., PhD., Keeper of the Records of the Government of the Punjab and also in preface has been appreciated by Percival Spear a British Historian Indo-Greek 17:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! I forgot the exact details... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take this to the talk page [of the page itself].
Secondly, the casualty figure has been disputed before and ultimately removed for the best of the infobox because of disputing. See the discussion I opened up on the talk page for more information.
@HerakliosJulianus @OpalYosutebito Noorullah (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]