User talk:Malik-Al-Hind

Welcome!

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Malik-Al-Hind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Disruption

Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, could look into the disruption going at List of emperors of the Mughal Empire and add back "Emperor of Hindustan", the formal title, with the new sources I mentioned at Talk:List of emperors of the Mughal Empire#September 2024. PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I have reverted their edit, told them to stop their disruptive edits and not indulge in edit war, Hopefully they will use the talk page now and seek consensus. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind, the page is being disrupted again. This time it's the second para. Even though it mentions all three cultural identities that is the original Persianate and Turkic, as well as the later Indian, the latter is still being removed. I've restored it but could you look over the page for the time being? PadFoot (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I will try to, I am on vacations right now but I will revert their edit. I will ask them to discuss this in the talk page again. Thank you.

But it's quite ridiculous that they are still having the problem with the word "Indian" when we have literally mentioned all other aspects such as them being persianate and turkic. And it isn't even like as if it's not backed up by sources, Numerous WP:RS sources and historians expertise in Mughal history call the dynasty "Indian" despite being turkic and persianate. Mughals being an Indian branch of persianiate turkic Timurid dynasty fits perfectly. Although I may act a bit rough here. But it looks like they are pov pushing at this point. As if Mughals were never indianized or became indian and their sole purpose here is to make it look like they were completely foreign and were never indianized. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you. Thanks for looking into this. PadFoot (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Padfoot and Malik, you do realize this is WP:CANVASSING right? And I literally just told padfoot that WP:ONUS is on him because if another user disputes the content he adds, then the responsibility for achieving consensus is on him. Which means this issue cannot simply be solved with reverting. Padfoot needs to use the talk page, because he has to gain consensus first before doing anything. This also means Padfoot and Malik shouldn’t be reverting anything until consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. Padfoot should already understand this considering it’s been explained to him several times in the past. “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”. [1]Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored, I notified Malik al-Hind of the disruption being done by you. Also there's a 2-1 consensus thus. PadFoot (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How many times have I told you that consensus is not voting? And this discussion literally just began. You clearly did not gain consensus for using the term “Indian” or “indianized” on the Mughal dynasty talk page. So you would still need to do so. Many people have already voiced their concerns about the use of those terms so it’s not a “2-1 consensus” as you claim.

You informed him? You’re actually canvassing with him. You literally went to his talk page to get him to revert things for you. And it didn’t start with me.

Wikipedia:Consensus

“ Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.”

it’s based on the arguments actually made. You’re just trying to shove your POV onto other articles after you couldn’t gain consensus on the Mughal dynasty page. How many times is WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS going to be repeated to you? @Sutyarashi recently pointed out the same thing to you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t see that you reverted it back until now. I suppose we can ignore my previous comment. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see where is the problem in using the term "Indian" when their "turkic" and "persianate" aspect is already covered. The people who were against using the term "Indian" were saying the same that it doesn't cover everything and using Indian alone isnt good because it ignores their other aspects, But now, it's covering literally everything. "Indian branch of persianiate turkic dynasty" fits perfectly. But again, if you have problems with it, you can consider using the talk page. I may won't reply since I am on vacations and really inactive these days. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read the RFC again. Many other users such as RegentPark and Airshipjungleman brought up separate concerns.

The ONUS is not on me to achieve consensus. Anyway, this doesn’t really matter anymore. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I remember a guy selectively pinging three other editors (as they had voted oppose on a previous RfC) when the discussion initially on Mughal dynasty had initially started. (Btw, 2-1 consensus is considered enough per WP:CONSENSUS). Also, the discussion on Mughal dynasty page was concerning a different article and regarding the opening sentence of the lead. Issues raised by RegentsPark was regarding the region and not culture, and AirshipJungleman simply said that the ethnicity was convered in detail in the second paragraph of the lead, and not necessary in the first paragraph. (Notice that the change on Mughal emperor is also in the second paragraph, and not the first paragraph.) I myself had pinged AirshipJungleman as he is a very experienced editor, and his argument convinced me that that the proposed first paragraph of the lead was unnecessary. PadFoot (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop saying that this is a 2-1 consensus. There were many editors who voiced their opinion on the Mughal dynasty page discussing their disapproval for the use of the term “Indian” or “indianized”. Even Flemmish who agreed with option 1, was against use of the word “Indian” and preferred “indianized”.

I’ve showed you the rules for this many times so you should understand that CONSENSUS IS NOT VOTING! It’s based on the validity of the arguments actually made.

“ In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.”

Quoting the policy is getting a little repetitive.

“RegentsPark was regarding the region and not culture”

Im not sure what you mean by that. He reverted you so he clearly opposed your addition. Read this.

“ Also, if you do need to associate it with the subcontinent, the preference should be for South Asian rather than Indian. Because the modern entity India is different from the historical one, we need to be clear what entity we are referring to”

This was his comment. We were talking about whether we should add the term “Indian” in the article or not. “Region not culture”? That doesn’t really make any sense. He didn’t just say we shouldn’t use the term “Indian subcontinent”. He specially used the term “Indian” which is indeed a culture. Both culture and regional identity both go hand and hand here.

Personally I also agree with him. I mean you were involved in another discussion with Joshua Jonathan about the use of South Asia vs Indian subcontinent and it seems that there was a consensus to use South Asia instead.

As for Airship, you should probably ask him separately if Indian or indianized is an okay term used to describe the Mughals. Regardless he wasn’t the only one who commented there.

“ Well, I remember a guy selectively pinging three other editors (as they had voted oppose on a previous RfC) when the discussion initially on Mughal dynasty had initially started”

I pinged 3 people on the talk page who had previous experience dealing with situations like this(which you’ve done too, but I didn’t make a fuss because I had no issue with that) I didn’t go on another persons talk page just to get them to revert and edit war with me against other users which you did prior to when I joined this discussion. That’s clearly canvassing.

Anyway this discussion is kind of pointless if the edit is gone anyway. At this point we should just move on from this. But if there’s any concerns you have, feel free to let me know. Hope my comment didn’t come off as too harsh or aggressive. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mughal-Safavid conflict (1542-1605) (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OhHaiMark was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mughal-Safavid conflict (1542-1605) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OhHaiMark (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Malik-Al-Hind! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OhHaiMark (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, I was wondering if there are any English language WP:HISTRS sources for the exact title "Shahenshah-e-Hind" being used by the Mughal emperors. If there aren't any English language sources, we shouldn't be listing it. (Note that I am not saying that the title was or wasn't used, I am only saying here that it should only be used in the English Wikipedia if it is used by English language sources. For example, the title "Šāhanšāh-i Īrān" is reliably sourced on Abbas the Great). PadFoot (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I did cite a source on Akbar's page. I will take a look over it once I am free and cite it again. I am barely active these days because of exams.

Thank you for your concerns though. Just wait i will check and add the sources soon. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source you had added was a fictional novel, which doesn't qualify as WP:HISTRS. We would need reliable sources or else we would need to remove it unfortunately. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. PadFoot (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Your recent editing history 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 pageto work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

How am i edit warring? You clearly made a change to a long standing version with no consensus whatsoever, a change which is disputed by 4+ editors. Please act neutrally. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s edit warring because you made 4 reverts. What happened isn’t some exception to the rule. And Jonathan is the one who made edit that you reverted in the first place. How are 4 editors even against me if this issue just came up? Who are the editors your talking about? Even if they were, that doesn’t mean you didn’t edit war. I’m going to wait a little bit before I decide on whether I should take this to the edit warring noticeboard or not, because again, it’s getting a little out of hand. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Those reverts were to different contexts and different people. Jonathan was merely testing and he did indeed say it is for temporary period. And the 4 editors are certainly against you namely Edasf, Crypto, Patliputra and Jingjong. They are certainly arguing for the modification of the map and you are removing the map as whole, what makes you think they will support you? They were just offline right now, but this doesn't mean you will vandalize the page entirely and make changes with no consensus whatsoever. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan was making a bold edit. You reverted him. He didn’t revert you back because he believes in the BRD cycle and is a lot more charitable towards you than he needs to be.

Anyway the point was that they didn’t voice their opinion. Your just saying a bunch of editors disagree with me which nobody is saying. Plenty of editors have also disagreed with you in the past discussion including me and Fowler(Joshua was the guy you reverted as well).

Regardless this doesn't excuse edit warring no matter what you say. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Joshua was clearly testing whether his note was working or not, he literally said that on the talk page itself. Can't you just accept you were the one vandalizing too? It just seems extremely ridiculous at this point. There was no consensus yet and editors were disagreeing with you yet you were imposing your said revision. Even other editors are criticizing you in the talk page[2][3]

"Plenty of the editors disagreed with you"

And I never posted something without a consensus? That is the sole reason I am gaining one by discussing with those "very people" who disagreed with me in the talk page.

'this doesn't excuse edit warring"

I nowhere excused it, I obviously accept I did edit warring and it wasn't right thing to do, But you can't admit that you were vandalizing too and you shouldn't have made changes to a long standing article without gaining a consensus first. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism? You do realize on wiki that has a very specific definition correct? I never vandalized any articles.

Wikipedia:Vandalism

“ Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism”

You can’t just be throwing around policy without having an understanding of what that policy entails.

“ Joshua was clearly testing whether his note was working or not, he literally said that on the talk page itself. “

what? Can you show me where? He made a bold edit which is what his edit summary clearly states.

“ I nowhere excused it, I obviously accept I did edit warring and it wasn't right thing to do, But you can't admit that you were vandalizing too and you shouldn't have made changes to a long standing article without gaining a consensus first”. Again not vandalism. I just made a bold edit. And didn’t continue to edit war. And it’s not like this is just a one off mistake you’ve made. You edit warred multiple times in less than 24 hours. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You removed the map of the maximum extent of Mauryan Empire while there have been consensus reached.

You claimed consensus have reached, but It did not.

What you did was disruptive. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

He wouldn't accept that, There is actually no use of arguing with such people. Moreoever Fowler is the only person arguing against the proposal so I will focus on discussing with him from now. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"what? Can you show me where? He made a bold edit which is what his edit summary clearly states."

Here [4], [5]

He was testing his notes, check what he said in the talk page. This is why he later said 'I understand" later on.

". I just made a bold edit. And didn’t continue to edit war. And it’s not like this is just a one off mistake you’ve made. You edit warred multiple times in less than 24 hours."

You continued doing disruptive edits not once, rather twice, going against the consensus whatsoever. Even other editors criticized you [6] [7]. But anyways you can continue believing as if you were abiding by the rules whatsoever.

Moreoever, read:

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism" [8]

Which indeed was happening, the map which you were posting was accused of being WP:OR and obviously bias by various editors yet you removed the long standing standard Mauryan version, A version of the map which has been in the article eversince 2004, that too without any sort of consensus or discussion..Not once rather twice. Which is a indeed a damage to the article. Which is neither neutral nor is a good faith edit. Now keep thinking what you did wasn't disruptive at all, I will stop replying from here. The readers will read and decide themselves . Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I just showed you a quote about vandalism. You clearly haven’t given the vandalism page a good enough reading.

“ The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.”

You sent me this quote but than ignored what was written right after this part.

“Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia;”

vandalism is a very specific definition which is only used in special circumstances. Even if the edit goes against consensus, it’s not vandalism as I have clearly showed you.

“Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus”

“Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.”

just because someone disagrees with you, or goes against consensus by making a bold edit, doesn’t mean it’s vandalism. Again, that’s a very specific definition. And generally speaking your supposed to assume good faith.

The fact that you tried to call me out for vandalism reveals that you don’t have a very good understanding of what vandalism actually is. Your just trying to put something on me because I called you out for edit warring and am currently considering reporting you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What you did was disruptive regardless, no need to school me about vandalism JingJongPascal (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A bold edit isn’t disruptive. I would consider edit warring to be far more disruptive if anything. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

About map and other.

According to me, the hole map should be completely removed. Or the Autonomous regions should be shaded with a lighter color.

According to Romila, The "autonomous regions"'s resources were controlled by the Mauryans, they used to exploit them on a daily basis.

The tribes were most probably "insurgents".

The sources provided for the hole map itself "Archaeology of South Asia" , has a map which is showing Mauryans without holes. It doesn't have one without holes.

British Raj also failed to fully control the tribes in Bengal hills. (No hole here)

Macedonian Empire had barely any control over it's territories except routes and major cities. (No hole here)

Mughal empire had also trouble controlling the same region as Maurya (one near Kalinga) (no hole here)

As Per the sources mentioned again, "they were relatively-liberated" can have several meanings. This is not exact statement anywhere in any book, that it was "independent"

I have put forward these points before. @Malik-Al-Hind @Edasf JingJongPascal (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the said statement except for Mughal/British empire. There are multiple places with no Greek inscription, coin or artifacts yet that part is usually included as a part of Alexander's empire. Same with the achaemenids. If we apply such a thing, then nearly every single ancient empire will get minimized. Regardless how I have already proved that the map is WP:OR since it doesn't align with a single source it cites and is based on. If we go through the sources cited, then at max we can light shade some territories, but that's the max we can do. The hole version isn't a mainstream map at all nor is academic. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly POV pushing.

Someguywhosbored has tried to disrupt the article by removing the maximum extent map not once but twice.

I have more sources with exact page no. by Romila Thapar

I won't be engaging in argument anymore, but I will be eager to provide you with sources of Romila stating about these "Autonomous regions". JingJongPascal (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I know, the very scholars on whose works the Holed map is based upon are clearly saying (literally) that Mauryans had a certain degree of control over these tribes and used to exploit these tribes. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also take a look at the present hole map.

Look at how they have this "red routes" notice that in central western part the route is shown on a hole area? Wow. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)