User talk:Twarikh e Khalsa

Hello

Hello Brother I am Jagseer from Moga, Punjab. I am one of the admins of Punjabi Wikipedia. Do you still work on English Wikipedia? Jagseer S Sidhu (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do brother I mainly work on sikh wiki related articles on English Wikipedia Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sirhind 1764

Sir hope all is well. I saw you made slight change to this article. I think the number of Strength for Durrani should be "Unknown" instead of "Unknown believed to be smaller" because if you look at this source by Ganda Singh below, page number 130, Zain Khan had a large army as well. This source give more detail about the battle where Zain Khan tried to enter Sirhind fort, quietly and secretly. So he tried to keep the large army with all heavy artillery engaged with the Sikhs as a diversion while Zain Khan himself took some soldiers to enter the Sirhind fort. But Jassa Singh anticipated his tricks and already had another set of Sikh soldiers ready to engage Zain Khan. "In the small hours of the morning of January, 14, 1764, Zain Khan moved towards Sirhind with a selected number of soldiers from the Mmhera side with a view to entering the city quietly and secretly. He left his artillery and other heavy weapons like Zambura, Rehkaley and drums with his main army. He ordered his main army to beat the drums so that the attention of the Khalsa was diverted in that direction In the meantime, he would be able to e iter Sirhind and take position for a battle with the Singhs. The Death of Zain Khan But S. Jassa Singh had anticipated all these tricks and he had posted spies on all sides."

[1]

Jadunath Sarkar's source has very brief info and not accurate. Please let me know what you think. I think keeping the Strength "Unknown" is reasonable. Even 40,000 is not actually an exact number. I read that its "probable". Javerine (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message.The reason why I believe that Zain Khan's army may have been smaller is due to the fact that some of Zain Khan's officers had left him in disgust due to him plundering villages within his own territory aswell as refusing to pay his own soliders.Due to the weakened state sirhind was in,it's likely that Zain Khan would have had a small and impoverished to face off the Sikh forces.Another thing to note is that the Sikhs had somewhere around 40,000 Soldiers in order to attack sirhind.It's possible that Zain Khan had a sizeable force just as Dr ganda singh has mentioned,but it would still would probably be smaller compared to the Sikhs.This is why i edited and said that the Sirhind force is believed to be smaller and used a source by Jadhunath Sarkar who is well known and reliable historian. Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course do more research and try to find more sources regarding the battle of Sirhind and to see what they have to say about how large or small the Sirhind force was. Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia spelling

Hi. In several recent edits you have used the misspelling "encylopedia", perhaps copying and pasting between your edits or using your own template? Could you please make sure that in future you make sure that the second "c" is also there in any usage you make? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misspelling I will have that fixed.Thanks! Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! Thank you so much, and have a lovely day. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work, here is a small token of my gratitude and to show appreciation

@Tarunveer Singh Aujla

		Military Barnstar
		Here is a military barnstar awarded to you to show appreciation for all the work you do towards improving Sikh-related military articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work! ThethPunjabi (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly shouldn't' have,thank you! Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Amritpal Singh's article

I think you would find it interesting to view. Feel free to give your thoughts in the talk page, currently pro-Indian government narrative users have shared one side of the story and have silenced any attempts at sharing the anti-government perspective, which led to the article being unbalanced towards a certain viewpoint. We need to make sure the article is fairly balanced and represents the Sikh side as well. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what i can do brother.However im not fully knowledgeable regarding the amritpal singh situation.I also can't edit on the article due to it only allowing extended users to edit. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Thanks

I just want to say hi and thanks for making good contributions. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem brother thank you for your contributions aswell.Im planning on a big wikipedia article later this summer which is something that i will soon update you on.Im planning on getting most of the major sikh wikipedia editoes involved in this project.Happy baisakhi to you have a good one! Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me in the loop and happy Vaisakhi to you to! CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twarikh e Khalsa @CanadianSingh1469 Sounds interesting. Sorry I haven’t been active much on Wikipedia this month, been on vacation abroad. I plan to return to making regular edits in May. Looking forward to learning more about the big project you have planned. ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big project

@ThethPunjabi @Javerine @Ronnie Macroni @CanadianSingh1469 @Usingh0663 @Shubhdeep Sandhu

Hello everyone!Im planning on creating a wikipedia article that details the military campaigns of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur.This page is going to focus on the various battles and campaigns banda singh was involved in.I personally feel like the military campaigns of Banda singh have been largely neglected on wikipedia so this wikipedia page will essentially provide details regarding his miliary campaigns aswell as background information leading up to his campaign.This page will require a good amount of research to pull of correctly so if you have any trouble finding sources then let me know.I also reccomend that if you are going to use primary sources such as khafi khan or panth parkash or suraj parkash,then use the source wisely and not excessively and to make sure that a reliable secondary source supports the claim made in the primary source.im planning on creating a new sandbox soon that will be available to all of you guys.If you have any other questions then let me know.If you dont want to be apart of this project then let me know aswell. Good luck to everyone! Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also if you guys know of any other wikipedia editors who might be interested in this project then let them know aswell. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing plan. I am so in. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twarikh e Khalsa @CanadianSingh1469 Amazing idea! I was also planning on creating an article on the first ever Sikh state founded by Banda Singh Bahadur between 1709 – 1716. I was thinking of naming it ‘Sikh Republic’ since it is described as a republican state in secondary sources. Does anyone else have any ideas on what the article should be called? By the way, I’ll be glad to help with the article covering the battles Banda fought. I’m currently on vacation in Punjab, India but I’ll be back home in Canada by next month and can dedicate more time to these projects as I’ll have access to my computer and more free-time. Cheers, ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of suggestions on what to call the article.

The Sikh rebellion under Banda singh bahadur

The military campaigns of Banda Singh bahadur

The Sikh uprising under Banda Singh Bahadur Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tawarikh Guru Khalsa might be interested in this Ronnie Macroni (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can start making pages about specific battles so you guys can easily find references Ronnie Macroni (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you can go ahead and do that.There are a couple of battles such as kaithal kapuri and mustafabad that you can help create.In a week I might start work on the battle of ropar which was fought between the Sikhs of the majha against sher mohammad khan.you can also help with that article aswell. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Ronnie Macroni (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banda Singh Bahadur's Invasion of the Hill States will make more daily :) Ronnie Macroni (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are honestly a legend thank you I will edit and add additions if I can. 50.101.161.136 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! He’s an awesome editor who has created so many articles on forgotten Sikh battles from our history. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianSingh1469 @Ronnie Macroni @Twarikh e Khalsa @Javerine Has an article for the Battle of Kiratpur from the early Mughal-Sikh Wars been created yet? ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made it but it got drafted, CanadianSingh1469 however improved it and submitted the draft Ronnie Macroni (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I saw you too Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks brother appreciate it :) Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salute

This editor is a
**Novice Editor**
and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks homie Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⢾⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡔⠋⣀⣼⡏⣼⣏⣹⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣡⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⡤⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠋⣉⣉⠙⢻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠴⠚⠁⣀⣴⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣿⠿⣿⣿⠟⢸⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⠔⠚⠛⣇⣀⣠⣴⣿⠿⠋⠹⣿⣤⣾⣿⡦⣽⠇⠀⡴⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⣿⠋⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣾⡟⠋⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⠛⠛⠂⢀⣼⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⢀⣴⡟⢹⣿⠇⠀⣠⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣿⣴⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⢠⣾⠋⠠⡿⠋⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣡⣤⣤⣄⡤⣊⣭⣿⣿⣿⣮⣍⣿⡿⠛⠉⢀⣸⣧⠤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⢻⣷⡆⠀⠀⣈⠁⠀⠴⠿⠿⠿⠿⣿⢿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠛⠛⢿⣿⣿⣷⠴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⡄⠑⢤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣗⣀⣠⣤⣤⡀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣯⣀⣠⡆⠀⠈⢿⠋⠀⠾⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣾⡿⠳⡀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠈⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤⣼⠀⢰⠀⠀⠀⠉⢁⡀⠀⠘⣿⡿⣁⠴⢳⣄⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡦⢬⡛⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⡄⢾⣶⣶⣾⣯⣿⡆⠀⠀⡉⠁⠹⣷⣿⢿⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣷⣄⣀⣠⣼⣿⠃⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⢠⣇⠀⢰⣿⣿⣌⡇

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⣧⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⡄⢻⣿⣿⣿⡉⢻⣿⣷⣸⣿⢠⡟⠀⠙⢿⡄

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢀⣷⢸⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⣤⠀⠘⡇

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⣠⣾⣇⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⣾⣿⠀⠀⣇

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣏⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⡴⢀⣿

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠏⠙⠒⠒⠛⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⡛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣡⣿⣿

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣷⣶⣤⣤⣴⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣿⠟⢿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢻⣿

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣼⣿⣿⣿⠀⣋⣿

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⣀⢀⡀⢀⢀⣀⣀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠞⠛⠻⠛⠛⠛⠟⠻⠛⠐⠛⠛⠛⠃⠀⠀⠈⠋⠋⠛⠚⠀⠙⠉⠜⠓⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀ CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jalalabad (1710)

One of the editor keeps changing the battle to Mughal victory but I reverted it to inconclusive as none of the sources claim Mughal victory. Source by Gandhi actually says that it was partial success for Banda. Inconclusive result is also due to the reason that Banda had to withdraw to attend urgent matters. Pinging @CanadianSingh1469: as well. 107.116.79.67 (talk) 02:21, 24 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.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

Noorullah21 Twarikh e Khalsa ThethPunjabi Ronnie Macroni CanadianSingh1469 In Battle of Jalalabad (1710) how is the total known 5400-6400 or 12,000 when there are still "unknown number of Ghazis". With Unknowns, the total is still Unknown. The result is also not definite for either side because the Mughals were repulsed and pushed back inside the fort when Jalal Khan immediately sent request to Bahadur Shah for help. But despite tough siege because of strong and long walls of the fort, flooding and bad weather, Banda continued the siege till he got reports of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah marching and attacking other territories and there were also urgent pleads by other zamindars for help, so Banda had to return to face these issues thus lifted the siege. Had Banda had more time, outcome would have been more definite for either side. The result should be "indefinite outcome". Sagoo source gives detail on this and it is available for everyone to read on the article.2601:547:B05:4CA8:4468:F620:560E:FE37 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have already concluded what you said regarding the result and infobox. Sources we know state that the Battle is a Mughal victory, regardless if Banda Singh was available to besiege it for longer.

The numbers are disputed because one of the sources mentions 5,400-6,400 and then states an unknown number of Ghazis. While another source says that the Afghans had 12,000 total. I.E, its referencing the total numbers known. Noorullah (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For discussions like this, you should be moving this to the talk page of the article, not on the talk page of a user. Noorullah (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider Muzaffar Alam's source, it says that the army of Jalal Khan Rohilla, Faujdar of the sarkar and Saiyid Taj-ud-Din Barha comprised a SIZEABLE number of zamindars along with the Shurafa of the region. SIZEABLE means FAIRLY LARGE. So isn't this much more reason to consider the total number to be "Unknown" keeping in mind that all information from provided by reliable sources are applicable to be on an article and its infobox.2601:547:B05:452F:9DFB:F3A5:3726:F8F1 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any strong base for conclusion of the result. Would recommend more opinions since this issue has been lifted by other editors and IP from what I see. 2601:547:B05:452F:9DFB:F3A5:3726:F8F1 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have sources that state what the Afghans had in battle. Sangoo states that they had around 5,400-6,400 men. While IHC said they had around 12,000.

The strong base is the source there linked calling it a Mughal victory. Noorullah (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources don't share similar thoughts and I see that they were removed. And Muzaffar Alam also shares what the Mughals had in battle. So if you include Sagoo and IHC, then even MUzaffar's source should be included too in the infobox stating : 'Unknown sizeable number of Zamindars with SHurafa. 2601:547:B05:452F:9DFB:F3A5:3726:F8F1 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21

I agree with your suggestion.the information from muzaffars source should be included aswell.Also next time please have this discussion in the talk page of the battle of jalalabad instead of my user talk page.I also want to let you know that @CanadianSingh1469 has retired from wikipedia. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 17:25, 3 August 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Battle of Rohilla

Hello there,

I want to inform you that I saw that a article related to Sikh battle history titled Battle of Rohilla has been nominated for Deletion. Since I am not very well versed with Sikh History but you seems to be, I think you might want to look into this. I would hate to see a article about Sikh history deleted form mainspace.

Thank you. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 06:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceofPunjab

Hey there. The page in question does have issues especially when it comes to the sources being used,however I highly doubt it's a valid enough reason to have an entire page deleted.Its a notable enough topic to have its own page on and only really requires the page to be restructured. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	We have some disagreements on Wikipedia but you have proven to be open minded and above the dogma that is unfortunately prevalent in some contentious areas here. Thank you for you work, respectful conduct, and for overall making Wikipedia a better place. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reward. Appreciate it Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think its very important for all editors to keep things respectful at all times. I have my own personal biases and so do you. However we shouldn’t allow our personal emotions to leak through wikipedia. Although i do disagree with you on alot of topics,you are an editor who's very well versed in various topics especially regarding South asian history.You have done work on wikipedia that i do appreciate and i commend you for it. Cheers to you @Suthasianhistorian8 Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]