User talk:Southasianhistorian8/Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afghan Civil War (1863–1869), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khairabad. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The excommunication of Banda Singh Bahadur by Mata Sundari

@Suthasianhistorian8 Hey so this is a discussion that i wanted to have with you for a while now and that is regarding the excommunication of Banda Singh Bahadur by Mata Sundari.The original source that makes mention of this schism occuring comes from Rattan Singh Bhangu who was the author of the 19th century sikh source known as the Panth Parkash.Altough alot of the information provided by the source is in fact reliable,his narrative on Banda Singh has been questioned by historians such as Dr Ganda Singh and Dr Sukhdial Singh.In particular regarding the supposed excommincation of Banda Singh by Mata Sundari.For One thing, Rattan Singh claims that Bhai Nand Lal had been ordered by the Mughal Government in persuading Mata Sundari in writing to Banda Singh asking him to stop his rebellion against the Mughals.This claim however appears to be erroneous due to the fact that Bhai Nand lal would pass away in Multan in 1713 whereas this schism occured during late 1714.Bhai Nand Lal also spent his last remaining years in Multan and not Delhi.Sukhdial Singh also notes that there is no hukamnamah in where Mata Sundari addresses Banda Singh or asks the Sikh community to abandon him.[1]Dr Ganda Singh also further notes that there is not a single contemporary Mughal chronicler or Historian that makes any mention of Mata Sundari excommunicating Banda Singh.[2]What are your thoughts on this? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BALANCE, both narratives, even if they are contradictory, should be presented, given that they are well sourced. Your edits seem to serve that purpose, so there’s no disagreement on my end. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8

I agree with you and thanks for the reply.Im working on a wikipedia page detailing the military campaigns of banda singh so its a bit awkward to include all the various narratives into one page even if some of these narratives presented are contradictory.I will of course include the information regarding the schism since this schism although disputed is still widely believed and mentioned by historians such as Hari Ram Gupta and J.S Grewal. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gurpatwant Singh Pannun 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. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kautilya3 for the heads up. In all honesty, I was the one who added the information [1], I removed it as I was unhappy with the way it was worded and I wasn't sure if it would be all that relevant in the grand scheme of things. I concur that it was a hasty and erroneous edit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kup

A user has recently mass deleted a large amount of information from the Battle of kup wikipedia page.What are your thoughts on this situation? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree with it, and I'm glad the content was restored. While authors like Chabra, Hari Ram Gupta, Ganda Singh, Harbans Kaur Sagoo are not as distinguished or pre-eminent in their field as Grewal, it is an unfair characterization to label them as unsuitable for the article's purposes. I have also noticed that university published literature tend to be quite brief and terse in their recounting of battles, so it is necessary to use work from authors who provide a much more detailed explication, even if they aren't doyens. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8

If the user reverts the edits again that we should definitely raise our objections and concerns.I personally find it concerning how one editor can consider a souce to be 'invalid" even if it's published by a academic institution such as the Punjabi university,or historians that have phds and other credentials. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is Haughtonbrit?

I've had a few interactions with one of his sockpuppets in the past such @Javerine,however exactly how long has he been sockpuppeting for?What has he done exactly?What exactly is your history with this editor? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at Second Siege of Anandpur. Considering that you previously promised in November 2022 to never edit-war and instead always seek consensus through standard dispute resolution, you may be permanently blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit war or harass another editor as you have in your edit summaries. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Quinlan While I do apologize for the reverts, isn't reverting socks considered an exemption to the 3RR rule? [2]-Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users. HaughtonBrit [3] has been hounding me non stop since April of this year and deliberately baiting me into frivolous disputes. You can even ask admin Abecedare (or RegentsPark) to corrobrate this since he's the main admin who's been dealing with him since April. I do engage with legitimate users through the talk page, but HaughtonBrit is not one of them, however, if you feel it's better for me to just engage with the user, I'll do that instead. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also requested the page to be protected as soon as he started editing it, but my request was declined because of lack of activity. On the other hand, discussing with him seems futile to me since he's not editing in good faith, once I tried to have a discussion with him even after he was blocked, and he fabricated a quote from an article to push a POV-[4]. Even though I had a subscription to the news article, checked screenshots on the Internet Archive and checked the non-paywall version of the article, he was still falsely insisting that this quote was in the article " ‘Some Pakistani Muslims call themselves Nanakpanthi, considering Baba Nanak a Muslim saint.’ You can also check with admin Abecedare to see what type of bizzare comments he was leaving on his talk page about not being a sockpuppet. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, the editor(s) on that article are not confirmed sockpuppets. Second, even if they were, you agreed to never edit war. Not only were you edit warring, you deliberately escalated your disagreement and intentionally violated the verifiability guideline with the edit you summarized as

since we're letting any primary 18th century source in the infobox, it's only fair to add mughal sources as well

Please ensure that your future edits are in keeping with Wikipedia's collaborative and consensus-based approach at all times. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my most recent edit on the page, but any IP in this area of Wikipedia that starts with 2601:547 or 2600:1016 and geolocates or WHOIS loactes to Pennsylvania is 110% HaughtonBrit. You can even ask Abecedare, RegentsPark or any other admin involved in HaughtonBrit's SPI. I've been dealing with him for the past year, please trust me when I say I'm not accusing just any IP of being HaughtonBrit. Once again, please take this up with Abecedare if you're skpetical. And I'm confused on how to deal with this- if I don't revert his disruptive edits and go to RFPP, it gets declined because of lack of activity, if I do revert him to get the page sucessfully protected as there needs to be a certain level of activity/disruption, I get accused of edit warring. And the last time I talked with him despite his block evasion, he fabricated a quote from an article.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare&oldid=1158414826#Former_Sock]-particularly Semied for a month since 24.154.112.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:547:B03:4000:0:0:0:0/50 etc is clearly them. Can extend or raise to ECP if it becomes necessary.--[5]

There was also a reason why Kansas Bear who made the request only templated the IP, it was because he was making tendentious edits (1 million is an obvious figure of speech and would've required almost the entire Mughal and hill raja armies to engage in this siege, which obviously did not happen). I tried to use his own logic of using an 18th century source in the infobox against him, which was wrong, but dealing with his sockpuppetry for months on end took a toll. And in all honesty and with all due respect, I do not believe that engaging with him or any other sockpuppets on the talk page would be conducive, sustainable or in the encyclopedia's best interest given his relentless POV pushing, use of circular arguments and WP:IDHT, is also an implicit condonation of sockpuppetry, and I find it honestly surprising that I'm expected to pretend that a blocked sock is a legitimate user. I personally feel the best approach would be to have the page protected, of course if they're constructive edits, I'm not going to revert them, but in cases of disruption like on the Second Siege of Anandpur, the only solution is to have the page protected. Moving forward, I will ask for input from admins involved in S. Asian topics on how to best deal with this HaughtonBrit situation and what to do in case I encouter disruptive editing, and heed their advice. 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate and simplify, I absolutely understand that engaging with other editors on the talk page when a content dispute occurs is imperative, and I have been abiding by that, but I do not think it's a reasonable demand or expectation that I engage or work it out with sockpuppets (especially with one who has been block evading virtually every single day since his block) when they're making disruptive edits. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need engage at all. You can request page protection, follow the guidance on dealing with sockpuppets, or both. Also note where the latter states:

Calling someone a "sockpuppet" or "sockmaster" on a talk page is considered uncivil, so don't do it.

That includes calling someone a sockpuppet in your edit summaries. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Yes all the edits (except possibly 1) from the 2601:547:b03::/49 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) since the last block expired on Jul 3rd are by HaughtonBrit. I have hence blocked the range for another 3 months. That said, Suthasianhistorian8, what Daniel Quinlan said above is correct in that:

Report such sockpuppetry and/or disruptive editing to the appropriate forum (SPI, RFPP, ANI, individual admins/CUs) and don't just edit-war
In particular WP:BANREVERT applies after sockpuppetry has been confirmed by an admin or CU
And the edit summary here indicates pointy battleground behavior

I realize that dealing with such LTAs is frustrating but we cannot respond by dropping our conduct, content or sourcing standards. Please keep that in mind from hereon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abecedare and Daniel Quinlan for the advice. Although, I was genuinely under the impression that reverting a sockpuppet was exempt from 3RR, I understand now that only applies after they have been confirmed as one by a CU or a clerk, and that calling someone a sockpuppet in edit summaries is frowned upon. I will try to handle these content disputes more carefully from now, but this was just a genuine misunderstanding. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remotely reliable?

I'm puzzled about this edit. How do you judge that the cited books are not remotely reliable? And please note that just because Google Book Search only shows snippets at the URL given doesn't mean the editor who cited the book didn't read it and find the info there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is unquestionably unreliable; the author has zero peer reviewed or notable works to his name and has no educational background in history. See his bio here [6].

If you're not familiar with this section of Wikipedia, it's absolutely inundated with relentless pushing of a certain narrative that a particular group has been overwhelmingly militarily successful, with a particular emphasis on that group achieving victories despite being "hopelessly outnumbered". These articles include some very poor sources and rely heavily on Google snippets and ref spamming, along with heavy use of primary sources like texts from the 18th century or the early 20th century (Max Arthur Maculiffe comes to mind). These concerns have been expressed by numerous editors other than myself [7] + [8] + [9] + [10]. With that in mind, the second source is not available on any other platform like the Internet Archive or LibGen and is almost certainly just a snippet.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed edits (POV pushing and inaccurate edit summary)

@Suthasianhistorian8 Thank You for reaching out, although you removed my edit solely on biasness. I have read and understood Wikipedia rules and regulations. Clearly, no inaccurate information was added to the page, I will like you to explain me what was wrong with the edit in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If you are unable to provide an adequate explanation, I will report you to the administrators for reverting actions without reasonable explanation. Regards Procrastinater (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits violate WP:NPOV. Go ahead and report me to the admins if you feel it's appropriate to do so. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permanant Ban will be applied.

@Suthasianhistorian8 Hi, I have reviewed your provided consensus article, it's definitely not neutral neither agreed upon some examples (Remove word "militant". /Remove word "militant"/Biased article). You are neither an expert of History nor do i believe you understand guidelines of Wikipedia. Firstly, stop spamming my talk page with warnings, you are not an admin, and this is against the guidelines of Wikipedia, you are consistently harassing another user and have started an edit war. Consider this your 2 warning one more revert, and you will be permanently banned from the platform. I have already reported you on this disruptive behavior. Regards Procrastinater (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption and POV pushing

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, you may be blocked from editing. You have reverted the article twice now to a blatantly POV, incorrect version. Any further reverts will be reported. UnbiasedSN (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpatwant Pannu

In a video that surfaced in October 2023, after the Hamas attack on Israel, Pannu warned Prime Minister Narendra Modi of a potential conflict akin to the Israel-Palestine war, stating intentions to carry out a “Hamas-like attack” on India. Can you add this to his bio? I am a new user and cannot edit the article. NeutralClaims (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend using an edit request on the page. Just type {{EPER}-[11] on the talk page of the article along with what changes you want made, preferably with reliable sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying but I don’t think I am able to use the template correctly. Here is the source by the way - https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/in-focus/story/khalistani-terrorist-pannun-threatens-india-with-hamas-like-attack-in-new-video-401442-2023-10-10 NeutralClaims (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until some better sources report on this. His comments on Indo-Canadian Hindus in September recieved widespread attention even from Canadian media and public figures, which as of yet these allusions to Hamas-like attacks have not. If you still believe it should be added, I would recommend you use these templates if you are unable to make edits to certain pages- [12]. It would also be a great idea to ask an admin about the suitability of the sources and whether or not it violates any WP:BLP policies . RegentsPark is an excellent admin involved in South Asian topics and I believe he would be able to help you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

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, you may be blocked from editing. 65.211.34.66 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]