User talk:W28394


 * Regarding your recent edits, please see WP:V -- all the content you add should be directly supported by the references. utcursch &#124; talk 12:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Date changes
Why do you change the dates in maintenance templates? Now you give the community the idea that it is a recent problem and not years old. The Banner talk 12:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And before you slap on unreferenced templates, could you please check if the article has references? I noticed a few times that you you did add unreferenced-templates to articles with references. The Banner talk 12:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jamali (tribe), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Caste lists
Please read User:Sitush/Common and stop adding names to numerous articles where they contradict that consensus. Bearing the same name as a caste is not verification that someone is from the caste, eg: Helen Reddy is not a Reddy. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are not from Pakistan which is why you have a major confusion with castes in Pakistan. Names like Junejo, Kharal, etc. are NOT used as first names in Pakistan and are ONLY used as caste names. Therefore, when you see someone with a Kharal or Junejo in his/her name, its his caste, not his fathers name, unlike the 'reddy' example you have given. W28394 (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where I am from. The consensus of the Wikipedia community is as stated on the page to which I linked. To do otherwise is original research and potentially a violation of one of our most important policies, ie: WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your policies need rectification then I believe. In this case, it does matter where you are from. It is common knowledge that caste names are NOT used as first names in Pakistan. You will not find individuals named 'Junejo', 'Kharal' etc in Pakistan. Therefore, If an individual has the word 'Junejo' or 'Kharal' in their name, it is their caste name. The reddy example does not apply to Pakistan as its a different society than the one you have given the example of.   Wiki needs to get in touch with its senior Pakistan based editors who have a better understanding of Pakistan and its people to to verify this otherwise you are just deleting factual information from articles in the name of 'policy'. W28394 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that. You can seek a change in consensus but you cannot enforce your view, which is what you are now doing at the Kharal article. Please read carefully the information below. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not enforcing my view but stating a general FACT known to all in Pakistan. This is absurd behavior. What you are doing right now is deleting factual information from an article and asking me to refer to this indirect "I am going to block you" message. W28394 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nijjar
Please do not use Nijjar's "Origins of Jats" as a source. As with books by Ram Swarup Joon and Thakur Deshraj, it is not considered reliable. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, may I know where and how a reliability of a source is established. W28394 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. After that, it is a decision made by consensus. We do have a centralised noticeboard for queries - the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - but more often than not it is possible to determine reliability without going there. In the case of Nijjar, there have been discussions at, for example, WT:INB. An awful lot of caste/tribe histories are not reliable, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking
We do not link major countries - see WP:OVERLINK. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed tags
Please revert all of your recent additions of cn to lead sections of articles relating to Brahmins etc. You need to familiarise yourself with WP:LEAD, which says that citations are not needed for those sections (except in extraordinary circumstances) because the section is a summary of the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Blanking
Hello, just a helpful tip... if you think a page should be deleted check out WP:PROD instead of just blanking the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gyan/Gian
Hi, you recently added a citation of a book published by Gian. Please note User:Sitush/Common. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!--Michig (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hindkowans
I don't know what all you were going for, but please do all this in one single edit next time. The edit history is impossible to follow. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi
I think your edits on khalji dynasty was very constructive. The other 2 editors are pov. Just add turk o afghan in the opening of article and your all well. And if they persist, invite other users to help you out in this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:2983:D3F3:697A:54DC (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, will do! W28394 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. If the user in khalji dynasty page keep POV pushing, report him and ask for wiki intervention. You will win because your edits are more constructive. Thank you.

I have issued the first warning. He is not one to be reasoned with as he has been known to enforce his opinions on to others and has also been warned by various users before. If he persists with constant vandalism, I will escalate the matter. W28394 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Evening User_talk:Srijanx22, I am NOT involved in edit wars. User:Kami2018 is only paying undue (unnecessarily undoing my edits) attention to the articles I edit as a petty way of getting back at me for undoing the vandalism he was involved in on another wiki article (Khalji Dynasty). You can verify this by looking at the date of my first reverts on that article and his reverts on the 'Hindkowan' article. He has been warned by various users before, including myself. I would like to request a senior editor to look into his wiki history and the number of warnings he has received for vandalism. Clearly User:Kami2018 is not interested in a consensus and has been in the past involved in vandalizing various wiki articles and enforcing his not so factual views on to other editors. I tried reasoning with him but to no avail. Kindly check the talk pages of the articles he is involved in vandalizing below. I will be reporting this account to other editors as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khalji_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindkowans

W28394 (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khalji dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Kami2018 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I'm curious. Why are you associating Kami2018 with Editorkamran? Note that accusations of sock puppetry are serious and it is considered disruptive to make them without also providing evidence. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey RegentsPark, its because 'Kami' in our part of the world is short for 'Kamran' and the fact that editor Kamran only intervened after Kami2018 started undoing changes I had made in a certain article. Was a genuine query. Not "sock puppetry". I believe accusing me of sock puppetry over a genuine query itself counts as disruptive. ThanksW28394 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously you should not be accused of sock puppetry without evidence as well. If you are, you should ask the other editor to stop and, if they persist, bring it to the attention of admins. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi
In Afghanistan page there are some technical problems. In history section it is edited that safavids and khwarizmi rose from Afghanistan which is untrue. Plus it should be empires that risen "from" Afghanistan instead of "in". I believe that mention of safavids in opening is not necessary and there should be drawn clear difference between the empires "that have risen from afghanistan" like kushans hephtalites etc and those that ruled. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.17.61 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And also
If there is gonna be turkic template in khalji page then there should be pashtun too, to balance it out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.17.61 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khalji dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. ''Clearly you are not learning from the facts that not even a single source remotely mentions what you have been adding to the articles. Your arguments are entirely dependent on adopting Afghan customs which doesn't change the ethnicity.'' Kami2018 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Re:Unfounded accusations of vandalism by Kami2018
Dear User:W28394, thank you for your message on my talk page. Given the lack of consensus for your edits on the talk page of the article, my recommendation, as with that provided by User:Fylindfotberserk, would be to self-revert. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Re:Hindkowan consensus
Hello User:W28394, the the issues you have with the content of the article should be explicated on the talk page of the article. Given that User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, User:NavjotSR and I have taken issue with your revision, the best thing you can do for yourself is to self-revert at this time and allow others to respond to your concerns. I will merge the threads on the talk page to prevent confusion from occurring. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page and have addressed most of your concerns there. As such, there should not be any additional issues given that everything has been sourced quite well. Kind regards, 00:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. DMacks (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:DMacks this user User:W28394 has been blocked for disruptive editing and just after one day he has started carrying out disruptive editing as seen here [] & [] with two different users. I am not sure how to deal with this person anymore. Kami2018 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:DMacks I would like to discuss the fact that while my edits have been reverted to a poorly sourced version on the Hindkowan article  over lack of consensus, no such action is being taken on the Khalji Dynasty article . Various editors dispute Kami2018s edits on the Khalji Dynasty article. Editors .Hayras123, Khestwol, Akmal94, FawadAliKhan11. 84.211.3.220, 2A01:799:5E0:6000:9C:2AFE:FC36:AD3F are only some users who have not given consensus on that article yet as can be seen on the talk page. Yet Kami2018 has been editing the page and POV pushing the article without any repercussions. W28394 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring always leads to a block. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position in relation to the article Khalji Dynasty. Can you please provide some new sources which refer to being Pashtun. Also they adopted afghan customs and were wrongly looked upon as Afghans sometimes which is part of the edit that you are continuously reverting. Please refrain from edit warring and please revert the article back to the referenced information and provide credible references which state that they were pashtuns and were Afghans.

References: THESE ARE JUST A FEW AND I CAN PROVIDE MORE. Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
 * The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
 * The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
 * This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India
 * The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe from southwest Ghur.


 * Kami2018 1) You are confusing ethnicity with genetics/ancestry when ethnicity is much more than that. An ethnicity is the state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is not limited to genetics or ancestry.


 * 2) This article is about the Khalji dynasty of Delhi. NOT the Khalaj people who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty.


 * 3) Like I said in my explanation earlier, Khaljis without a doubt descended from a Turkic tribe BUT were adopted into the Pashtun/Afghan ethnicity about a thousand years ago. BEFORE the Khalji Dynasty took the throne in Delhi. You ASSUME that due to Khaljis being descendants of the Khalaj people, they remained Turkic forever. Which is extremely ignorant given the fact that;


 * 4) Pashtuns are NOT a homologous group of people. Pashtuns have historically descended from different groups of people. From the hephthalites to the khaljis. Today, the Khaljis/Ghilzais are the largest tribal confederacy among the Pashtun ethnicity and are nowhere to be found among the Turkic people. They re purely called Afghan/Pashtun, not Turkic. Some popular Khaljis today are/were Ashraf Ghani (President of Afghanitsan) and Mullah Omar (Ex Taliban Chief), they are referred to as Pashtuns, not Turks.


 * 5) The main question here is whether the Khaljis of the DELHI SULTANATE were Pashtunized by the time they ascended the throne and the obvious answer is YES.


 * 6) Like the sources state, "They were looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners". 'Wrongly' does not matter in this context as we have already established the above points about the identity of the Khalaj people, who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty, and the identity of the Khalji Dynasty itself.


 * 7) Other sources reestablish the FACT that the Khalji Dynasty of Delhi were more Afghan/Pashtun than their ancestors, the Khalaj, and that they had adopted the Afghan/Pashtun ethnicity. "The Khaljis had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks" and "The Khaljis were a Turkic tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians"


 * 8) Going by all the above statements, you will have to completely lack comprehension skills to NOT see that the Khalji Dynasty was NOT a Turkic dynasty but a Pashtun/Afghan dynasty of Turkic descent which was entirely Pashtunized by the time it took the throne from the pure bred Turks. If you have any doubt, refer to point 1 again. Thanks.


 * W28394 (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand the fact by adopting English customs one can be treated as English but ethnically he would remain Turkic etc. There is no reference where they spoke Pashto rather persian which every turkic emperor use to speak. Give strong arguments not the same references where it clearly mentions they are turkic and adopted afghan customs and were wrongly looked down upon as afghans. If you cant come with Sources which state they were Afghan origin and spoke Pashto then unfortunately article will have to be reverted to follow the references. Please provide references that state they were Pashtun and Afghan and not turkic. Kami2018 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Kami2018


 * "Clearly you don't understand the fact by adopting English customs one can be treated as English but ethnically he would remain Turkic etc"


 * You wont. The fact that terms like "British-Indian" or "American-Indian" exist is testimony to it. Khaljis moved to Afghanistan in the 4th century AD. They were present in Afghanistan, among the Pashtuns, for over 6 centuries before moving to India. That is long enough to entirely integrate. More locally, terms like "Sindhi-Baloch" or "Punjabi-Pathan" are used to describe people of Pashtun or Baloch descent who over the centuries adopted the cultures, social habits, etc, of ethnic regions they had moved to. Saying Khiljis were Turkic due to 5th century Khalaj people being Turkic is akin to saying that the Durrani Pashtuns are Turkic-Iranian since they are said to have descended from the Hephtalites who in return are said to descended from Turkic-Iranian people of the 4th century.


 * "There is no reference where they spoke Pashto rather persian which every turkic emperor use to speak."


 * Persian was the lingua franca of the region. The Turkic Mughals also spoke Persian. So did the Pashtun Lodis and Suris. Durrani Empires court and official language was Persian. Ethnic Pashtun kings of 20th century Afghanistan spoke in Persian as well. The modern day Niazi Pashtuns in Mianwali speak in Punjabi and Seraiki. The Yousafzai, Utmanzai, Tareen, Dilazak and Jadoon Pashtuns of Hazara Division speak in Hindko. Languages do not define ethnicity.


 * '''Give strong arguments not the same references where it clearly mentions they are turkic and adopted afghan customs and were wrongly looked down upon as afghans.

'''
 * Those references are self explanatory. The other references I have used have been reverted by you. The authors assume that since the Khalaj were proper Turkic in the 5th century AD, the Khalji Dynasty of the 13th century AD was Turkic too. This is not entirely true as we know for a fact that the Khaljis went through an ethnic change a couple of hundred years after having moved to Afghanistan and Southern Pakistan. The historians of 13th century India refute Khaljis being Turk for this same reason. Ziauddin Barrani, the author of the Tarikh-e-Firoz Shahi, states:


 * "The Khaljis are a race different than that of Turks, nor would the Turks own them as belonging to them".


 * Keep in mind that Ziaduddin Barrani's father served the Khalji Dynasty as a Naib and was a confidante of Arkali Khan, the son of Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji. Whereas his uncle Qazi Ala-ul-Mulk was the Kotwal (police chief) of Delhi during the reign of Ala-ud-Din Khalji. Thus we can conclude they worked with the Khalji royalty and were not passing of knowledge as outsiders. Barrani was not the only one at the time with this view. Minhaj-i-Siraj, the principal historian for the Turkic Mamluk Sultanate of Delhi, for whom he wrote the Tabaqat-i Nasiri was very clear in mentioning the Khiljis and Turks as a different group of people. While giving a detailed account of Mohammad Bakhtiar Khilji's exploits, he gives the following statements:


 * "When his lashkar passed over that bridge, he posted there two of his amirs, one being a Turk, the other a Khalji, to guard that bridge".


 * The entire Turkic nobility of the time did not consider the Khaljis as a Turkic group of people. This coupled with the fact that modern day Khiljis are all Pashtu speaking and identify as Pashtuns and are counted among the Pashtun people in all censuses even today testifies to the fact that Khiljis went through an ethnic change around 1000 years ago, as quoted by many historians. This is even more evident by the fact that among all Turkic dynasties of India, Khalji was the only dynasty whose ancestry was questioned and were not looked upon as Turks by Turkic people of northern India of the time, or by scholars and historians of the time.


 * If you cant come with Sources which state they were Afghan origin and spoke Pashto then unfortunately article will have to be reverted to follow the references.


 * Read above statements about language and sources.


 * The best option here is to go with Turko-Pashtun identity. Due to the Khalaj people of the 4th century being Turkic and modern day Khiljis being Pashtun coupled with historical statements regarding Khalji Dynasty not being Turks, there is no consensus among historians themselves about Khilji Dynasty's ethnic identity. Therefore, instead of pushing your own POV ,which going by the talk page, is against editor consensus, the more neutral term will be used.


 * W28394 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@W28394 "Durrani Pashtuns are Turkic-Iranian since they are said to have descended from the Hephtalites" -- I GUESS YOU TRULY BELEIVE IN FAIRY TALES AS THIS IS NOT A PROVEN THEORY. THIS CLARIFIES THAT YOU ARE JUST THINKING OF KHILJIS AS PASHTUN WHEN THEY SPOKE TURKIC LANGUAGE AND MIGRATED FROM CENTRAL ASIA AND NOWHERE THEY SPOKE PASHTO. ALL THE SOURCES WHICH EVEN MENTION AFGHAN CLARIFY THEY WERE WRONGLY LOOKED DOWN UPON AS AFGHANS BY NOBLES. THEY WERE TURKIC DESCENT EVERY SOURCE MENTIONS THIS. PLEASE BE CONCISE WHILE REPLYING AS THAT WOULD BE MORE HELPFULKami2018 (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Kami2018 I have reasoned with you for over 2 months in the most concise manner possible and cannot spend all day doing it anymore as I have a job outside editing wiki articles. You are POV pushing and it is against wiki policies. Over 6 editors have called you out for POV pushing on those articles. Gain their consensus and make the changes.


 * W28394 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty vandalism
Go for the (Last resort: Arbitration) involve wikipedia he will get blocked!

Hi I was wondering why you are not contributing. Have you Been blocked or something? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:799:5DF:6500:E0FA:69CD:6411:6F80 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ~talk Thank you for checking up. No I was not blocked, why would I be blocked? I have been busy with work.
 * W28394 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Re:Khalji dynasty
Hello User:W28394 and thank you for your message on my talk page. My advice to you would be to engage with others on the talk page of that article and gain consensus for your changes there. Additionally, tagging multiple users whom you might feel are sympathetic to your position, as you have done, might be construed as canvassing and therefore, I would recommend that you not do this in the future now that you are aware of the policy. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between tagging individuals who have already organically commented on the tag page and selectively inviting a slew of individuals to bias the discussion in a certain way. My intention was to help you with my advice, as I am not currently involved in the Khalji dynasty discussion, but it seems that you took it the wrong way. AnupamTalk 00:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:W28394, that's fine then if they were already participating there. I didn't check that talk page but just thought I'd mention the policy in case you weren't aware of it. Cheers, AnupamTalk 05:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Khalji dynasty, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please refrain from removing sourced information. You have already been blocked once for this attitude. This is the first notice for all three articles Khalji dynasty, Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Hindkowans'' Kami2018 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Khalji dynasty, Jalal-ud-din Khalji, you may be blocked from editing. ''Read the references and refrain from adding information that is not part of the reference. you have already been blocked once due to such behavior. Articles are based on references not personal choice.'' Kami2018 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Gandarbha
Hello,

You tagged Gandarbha in 2018 for no references. I have tried to improve the article, and have added what refs were available to me. The article really needs expanding, as it seems to really be an entire caste group of people; I doubt I'll have references for that any time soon. Jacqke (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji
Hi. Can you expand the origin section of Bakhtiyar khalji, because it is not defined well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for a reconsideration on the block I just received. I understand I have been blocked for not taking my concerns to the talk page on a couple of articles I am editing and contributing to.  However, that is a mistaken belief as you can note that I have actively been engaging editors and getting their consensus on the edits I had made. , Recently, certain wiki editors decided to edit the above mentioned articles (which were edited after months of discussion and editor consensus) without engaging other editors or reaching a consensus on the talk pages. Upon preventing them from doing so, I have been blocked. Kindly give this a consideration.

W28394 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Niazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashti. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Khizr khan
Hi, this needs your attention. . In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khizr_Khan page (Ali banu sistani) is deleting the Afghan mention of Muntakhab-al-Lubab, and instead write it arab, where the book clearly mentions him Afghan as you might already know. I tried to revert him a few times but he is persistent and is using multiple accounts. can you fix the vandalism please. Thank you.