User talk:Munawwar Zaidi

May 2024

Hello, I'm Cowboygilbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gorkha Kingdom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. the information is in the sources, it is backed by a reliable source. does not need to be authentic. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert I already explained the reason for the removal. What was written here is just a theory and much of that was POV not backed up by sources. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left another section down below, please respond there. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Disambiguation pages do not get cites themselves because they do not have "content" except for a directory of other articles that are presumably cited. Lead sections do not generally or have substantial novel content because they just summarize the aritcle itself that is presumably cited. DMacks (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced information

Hello, @Munawwar Zaidi. I have warned you because it showed that you removed information that was backed in the source given. Your edit summary of, "Removed content not backed up by authentic sources and was probably POV. Many sources attached did not even mentioned what was written here", did not make sense as one look and the information was in the article. I've seen that you have said that scholars and other journals have said that the information is different, do you have these journals or scholars that you can provide? I also saw you mention, WP:RAJ, which is a Editor-written essay and is not of official policy. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Rajputs of Nepal

I have reverted your edits at Rajputs of Nepal because you have removed sourced content without adequate explanation. "There is a dispute among scholars" is not adequate justification - please present your arguments at the article's talk page, or add sources refuting the content into the article without removing existing sourced content. I see that you have already been warned about removing sourced content - please take the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 14:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Black GB What sources should i add to prove that literally No source calls Licchavis and Mallas as Rajputs? can you tell me which source in this article calls them as rajput caste? Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 39 in-line citations in the article and 30 listed sources. I do not have the time to read through all of them, hence why I suggested you bring your articles to the article's talk page. The sources appear reliable and the citation style is compliant with Wikipedia referencing policy. If you continue to unilaterally remove content and revert other editors, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Black GB I understand what you are saying. It literally took me a day to check all of the citations used here. None of them Calls Licchavis and Mallas as Rajput caste. Rajput as a caste never existed back in the times of Licchavis. I want you to recheck all this and reconsider your revert. I am not removing any content in this article anymore and will leave it upto some experienced editors who actually bother themselves to check sources. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit here at Shah dynasty also removed references to Rajput with the edit summary "removed information not available in source" but on doing a quick CTRL + F search on the cited source I found 12 mentions of Rajput. Considering this and your systematic removal of content across multiple articles, I would question whether you have checked all of the sources thoroughly. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Black GB i have. Just check the same source where you found 12 mentions of Rajput. In page 138 it clearly calls Mallas as "Non Rajput" Hindu dynasty. I request you to please read it all once. Those articles are full of misinformation and POV. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area of expertise and, if it were, I have already said I don't have time to read all of the sources. I have already asked you to bring this to the article talk pages. The content appears to be well cited, so please discuss this with other editors at the relevant talk pages before blanking content. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Black GB I got it. Since i was too hectic, i removed whole paragraphs. I will mention this in article talk page in detail and then remove the false information the way it should be. Thanks for your concern though. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing, why not improve the encyclopedia by changing the information? Editors have done complete rewrites of articles that they seemed were bad. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert okay i will try to do what you asked me. Will do it once i get time and preparation. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jaunpur Sultanate

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jaunpur Sultanate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Munawwar Zaidi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong and i don't even understand why i am blocked by getting tagged as a sockpuppet when this is my first and only account here on wikipedia. I never tried to break any wikipedia policies neither i am looking to do so. Please unblock me. I am just trying to make wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia by adding citations and templates related to it. Sometimes i add reliable information too. Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Bhojadeva (previously confirmed as a sock) and to Sankul Rai, which is not currently blocked. I'll correct that oversight. Yamla (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Only one unblock request at a time, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put an unblock request on hold; only an administrator can do that. If you continue to disrupt this page, I will revoke your access to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Sorry for that. I'm still learning since i'm new here. What did i even do to become a sockpuppet? Munawwar Zaidi (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]