This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The article seems to have been constructed by lumping together Skandagupta's enemies, such as the Kushans, Sasanians, and Hepthalites, and labeling them as "Mlechha" to fit them into an infobox. This is the impression I gathered after reading the article. Such an approach is not acceptable. Pinging @HistoryofIran. Even this was one of the reason for indefing @Melechha, as the name is a racial slur to non-Indians/non-Hindus. Imperial[AFCND]15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered that aspect as well. If articles like "X's war with invaders" or "Y's war with Z" are within the scope, there could potentially be an unlimited number of articles. Moreover, anyone could add numerous belligerents to the infobox, regardless of the campaign or time period, or they perhaps have no relation with each other. This is indeed a concerning issue. Imperial[AFCND]16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should spend more time reading the guidelines than trying to recruit members. I’ve had enough, I’ll make the ANI report in the upcomimg days. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, so now you are accusing me of a new title Recruiting members. I'm recruiting members? For what? Kindly name any. Your second (or third?) ANI report on what, for me doing sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? How many times do you want to be proven wrong? Anyways, I don't care, go ahead and try again. Just don't forget to notify me when you have reported me on ANI. Jonharojjashi (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the screenshot and evidence I have are my own imaginations. You do realize I was never proven wrong and was actually advised to go to ANI again? Sure, Ill make the report, then you can go and make another desperate SPI of me and the other 12 users of other nationalities who have you called out for disruption. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- The same evidence which you had used to report me on ANI and SPI? I was never proven wrong, [1]unrelated call and [2]three different peoples Now I don't want any explanations from you as we know you have been lying to demean me [3] and your whatever evidences and statements don't hold any substance and I don't know who advised you to go to ANI again (I may have forgotten) neither I want to know. You can file as many unsubstantiated ANI and SPI as you want but you should better focus on the topic of the thread instead of lengthening it with your personal issues with me. And no one has ever filed any case except you, who got some personal issues with me. Jonharojjashi (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI =\= ANI. And its because the evidence was not allowed at ANI per WP:OUTING and thus I took it elsewhere, which you would know if you read the report. If you dont know then why say something? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI ≠ ANI yet proceeds to give unsubstantiated evidence of sockpuppetry at ANI. I already said that I won't hear your explanations after you've been proven wrong, the clerks knew everything after reading your unsubstantiated report and they decided it was unrelated call so now why would I give a penny about it?
Moreover I found you always jumping on my newly created articles and then you start lengthening the topic thread with our previous personal engagements, what's the reason behind it? That's not a good thing at all. You probably should stop doing that. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, the report at ANI was for meatpuppetry (it was literally in the title of the report [4]), not sockpuppetry, more proof you did not properly read it. Unless you have access to my email or that of the people at ArbCom, you don't know what the clerks said. Anyways, ready the SPI of me and the other 12 users who have called you out, it will be a party soon! HistoryofIran (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do say he fought against the hordes of mlechhas. If it is considered as a racial slur because it is referring to the invaders. Then I have already renamed it with another appropriate title, but considering that many pages exist with the title containing "Mlechha" it doesn't seem that it's inappropriate with that context. Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot simply adopt words like "Mlechhas" exactly as stated in secondary sources. Many secondary sources use terms like "Melechha", "infidels", "Pagans", "Kafirs", or even outdated terms from the Raj era, which are not vulgar, but not in use such as "Hindoos" and "Mohammedans". Even if these sources are considered reliable, we should not directly incorporate such language into the article body, such as stating "the X defeated the Y" using these terms, or even more exaggerated expressions like "X crushed Y with his sword". The only exception is when we quote directly from the source using the {{quote}} template, as seen in one quote within this article, which is appropriate. As authors of articles in this encyclopedia, it is important for us to refrain from making vulgar or offensive statements. Imperial[AFCND]18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be wrong here by equating "Mlecha" with "infidels", "heathens" and "kafirs" as we know "Mleccha" generally refers to the barbarians of a foreign tribe and peoples who are not associated with India. Well I got you (I probably now understand what you meant now), I should be taking more soft titles for the article. Jonharojjashi (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
