User talk:Noorullah21: Difference between revisions

Feel free to discuss anything with me here.

You have the right to remove messages and warnings from your Talk page, but each time you do so, you are posting the same comment at the top: "Feel free to discuss anything with me here." Frankly, this is nonsense because you are obviously unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. The best practice at Wikipedia is for you to respond to legitimate posts. Failing that, you should not remove them, but rather set up archiving so that on some periodic basis messages are placed on special archive pages. If that too is unacceptable to you, then remove them, but don't post disingenuous, false comments when doing so. Such behavior can be construed as a failure to collaborate with others, and that is something that all of us must do if you want to retain your editing privileges.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a bit confused on what you mean here, nobody has come to debate me yet or talk to me about anything, I only removed certain pagers like warnings, so I really don't get what you mean, there is nothing to archive as well other then just ambugiuent link warnings, or other bot stuff, you can clearly see that if you check view history. Bbb23 -Noorullah21

Talk pages are not just for "debate", but for responding to other editors, which includes responding to warnings. The most obvious example is this warning left by administrator Drmies. It also appears to me that you are not new to Wikipedia. What other accounts have you used? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:Maybe consider looking into accounts Mblam716, Eyafocul, IPs 120.21.24.91 series, Mujhideen101 (blocked), Iseefire1001 (blocked).AtmaramU (talk) 24:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to make it seem as if I have alted before? I have not used any other account on Wikipedia except some other one named Noorullah something that I forgot the password to in like 2019, so I made this one in 2020 and have been editing since. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created this account on April 1, 2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad not 2020, 2021* Noorullah21 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I have not used any other account, the edit Administrator Drmies had reverted was also self explanatory, I was editing a page but had to cut it off amongst revamping it (which is what I do) Noorullah21 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reported for false posts and misuse them for your amusement. Just like this one below you posted on my TALK page:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Noorullah21 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) AtmaramU (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I put you on the noticeboard for edit warring, I do not understand what you mean for false posts? This is not for amusement or misuse whatsoever, read the noticeboard please as there is currently 2 transgressing reports against you. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AtmaramU (Friendly talk page stalker) But it's there. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danre98 He sent message first and then reported because the report wasn't available when he sent the message. Also he is misusing the noticeboard because there has been no 3RR within 24 hrs as the policy states.AtmaramU (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might have happened. I'm not going to get involved over whether the noticeboard is being misused, but I'll note that the WP:3RR policy states Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times (emphasis on "with or without 3RR being breached"). Even if there hasn't been more than 3 reverts for a user in a 24 hour period, the spirit of the law is also important. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oops, ping @AtmaramU. I forgot. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am a bit confused on what @AtmaramU meant here. @Danre98 Noorullah21 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AtmaramU (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noorullah21, I've removed the report at ANEW. AtmaramU can comment at the report filed by you against them if they wish to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Did you check it properly? the person did revert three times. Once on the 24th of august, and twice on the 25th of August. Check the third anglo afghan war page and check its review history, you will be able to see it, please reconsider your option on the case of "no result". Noorullah21 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate WP:3RR. If you're going to report editors, you should read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Ok I see, but what do you think of the issue as a third party, I want it to be shown more clear, instead of what it is right now on the result box of the Third Anglo Afghan war. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear, terse perhaps, but clear. It doesn't say "no result"; it says "no violations", which coupled with my comment at the bottom of the report, says precisely what happened, or what didn't happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to specifically change it to

Result:

Treaty of Gandamak

• Afghan Independence recognized by the United Kingdom Noorullah21 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21: If you want a third opinion on a content dispute (and it is a dispute between two editors), you can go to Third opinion. Otherwise, you can follow the steps of dispute resolution. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my intention, from what I remember I don’t remember being logged out for my edits, if I was that was my mistake. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HaughtonBrit Hey friend!, so I wanted to talk about your revert to the more credible version and why I reverted it. So, I assume you reverted it because you believe it is somewhat undersourced with roughly 1-3 sources only being used in most, I acknowledge that and am adding on more now, including information. The Reason for said Revamp on Timur Shah was because the old page was very lacking in detail and skipped out on a lot of info, I have also seen your edits of removing duplicates and random spaces, so I will also try to implement that now. If you have anything to say, please reply so we can talk. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Buddy, please leave the changes i made as I went through all the sources and updated the content as the source states. Its recommended that all sentences are supported by references. I will revert. Also looks like you ended up creating duplicates. I will fix it. HaughtonBrit (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @HaughtonBrit, very well I suppose. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HaughtonBrit Hey, so I wanted to talk to you about the Second Anglo afghan war, what I am talking about is that Afghanistan wasn't exactly a protectorate, it was a protected state, "British protected states represented a more loose form of British suzerainty, where the local rulers retained absolute control over the states' internal affairs and the British exercised control over defence and foreign affairs.", the article in British Protectorate also phrases this, so I believe it is more appropriate to put it as a British protected state rather then a protectorate, since protectorates were usually under more presumable influence as well, what are your thoughts? Noorullah21 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It even says as well, if you scroll down the "British Protectorate article" it brings you to "List of former British protected states As protected states, the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted.[", Afghanistan is also included in this list, so I believe it should thus be included as a BRITISH PROTECTED STATE, not a protectorate more appropriately. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references on the article and various historians state British Protectorate of Afghanistan till 1919. Here is the line from the reference. “In this treaty, the Amir of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.”

So you have to stick to reference as proof. As far as links on other articles on Wikipedia, those are not reliable just like Wikipedia states that it’s articles can be plain wrong or vandalized especially since anyone can edit at any time.

Bottom line, information should be what the reference states. Hope that helps. HaughtonBrit (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noorullah21! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Third Battle of Panipat that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Third Battle of Panipat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam I am wondering why you keep reverting the flag addition, can I ask why? Noorullah21 (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did my edit-summary link to any policy? What did RegentsPark note at the talk-page? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He noted that the use of flags is discouraged, however there are exceptions to this such as “Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions.”, also I replaced rohillas with the Amb State if you do not mind about that since that is more appropriate. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark noted WP:V is a core policy on Wikipedia and no one should be violating it. You need to cite reliable sources which note the combatants to have had these flags during the time-span of the war.

You have been already notified of WP:ARBIPA. So please get accustomed with WP:HISTRW. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can verify that they had said flags during time period, I may add them back without it being undone? Noorullah21 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes for the reverts as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. 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) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Third Anglo Afghan War have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Disruption of page. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at British protectorate, you may be blocked from editing. Removal of sourced content with content that doesn't mention or correlate to provided article, false content. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]