User talk:Sutyarashi

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving the Mughal Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal war of succession.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to get your opinion on a discussion I started regarding adding artwork depicting Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh as an infobox image, please see:

I've noticed you've questioned the factual validity of the Vardhana empire, Eastern Punjab republics and the Tomara/Katoch dynasties section. What is the reason for this? Trigarta (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TONE and WP:Synthesis has been corrected for in all 3 topics, So warning should be removed now. Thanks Trigarta (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigarta: your edits, specifically on the lead, have created a mess. For example you added this line: It contained many heavily Punjab influenced dynasties such as the reign of Razia Sultana, the Sayyid dynasty and the Tughlaq dynasty.

This is not only unverified and ethnic

It is not WP:HOAX, if you asked me to provide all the sources I would have, rather than deleting them. The Tughlaqs hail from Multan and Eastern Punjab and the Sayyids have theirs roots as Punjabi Kokhars with their home town in South Punjab. Razia sultana gained most of her support from Punjab aswell. Trigarta (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		A plate of Samosa for you
		Hello, I've noticed you've been working hard on improving the Jat Muslim page. I have been reading what you've been adding and found your additions very fascinating and informative. To show appreciation, I'm leaving a plate of samosa for you. Enjoy! Thank you. talk) 17:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India .

talk) 17:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

My comments : When three families Gabaris, Mumayalis and Mitravis came to Hazara from Swat then they were combinely called Swatis. Brother Look at this if there is something to argue on it then tell me so I stop editing that page again n again. As Gabaris are Persians and it is proved in recent DNA that you can find on google. Shah Mir was Gabari as accepted my many historians. Thank You Gibari Sultan (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gibari Sultan I have reported you for explicitly showing sockpuppet behaviour. You're free to defend yourself there. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why you are not replying to my questions instead of reporting, Means you want to impose your knowledge on others Gibari Sultan (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ustad Ahmad Lahori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lahori Gate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you changed some numbers. I have provided page numbers here and links at the bottom of the article in question. On page 211 Max Arthur provides casualties. The number is 50,000 for that battle. On page 96 he provides 7,000 for one battle. On page 149 the author of The Sikh Gurus he provides a number for another battle which is 15,000. So what we can do is not combine all the casualties but just list them out for each battle.

Ex. Battle of Amritsar 7,000

Battle of Rohilla 15,000

Battle of Lahira 35,000

Battle of Kartarpur 50,000

Is the above fine with you? I will provide adequate citation from reliable sources

P.S Gurbilas is about Guru Hargobind not Guru Gobind Singh. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Sutyarashi maybe we can use Gurbilas as reference for the numbers but say according to Sikh sources. So for example According to Sikh Sources: 75,000 CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HISTRS). Even the macauliffe source which is frequently used in the article is outdated by more than a century. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because a source is old does not make it unreliable. What I an suggesting is listing out each individual casualty for the battles per Max Arthur and not combining them. Is that ok with you?

To quote from the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, “ GURBILAS CHHEVIN PATSHAHl, lit. the (life)play of the Sixth Guru, is a versified biography of Guru Hargobind…” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how much reliable Macauliffe is; but it is better if individual numbers are separately listed. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will go ahead with it. So is it a firm no on using Gurbilas because I think it can be used by saying per Sikh sources beside it. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is more of an epic than a historical account. If you wish, you can have a separate section on what Sikh biographies say but not in the info box. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for agreeing and being so helpful. I wish there were more editors like you instead of people who just revert and don’t elaborate. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi By the way you seem to know a lot of history about the Mughals. Could you point me to some sources talking about Zabardast Khan who was a governor of Lahore during Guru Gobind Singh’s time. Thanks in advance. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you left a second-level warning notice on my talk page meanwhile when I left a general caution message you removed and deleted it, Isn't it a biased thing to do? ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starkex Because you accused me of mass deleting content, which never happened. On the other hand, you are adding material about which there is no reliable source, that's why I left a message at you talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I understood all that and pardon if I committed an mistake but on the other hand removing Talk page comments is not a polite way of solving editorial disputes. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 17:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's only if that those messages have merit. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ustad Ahmad Lahori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dooms.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shah Jahan Mosque.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

• There are 3 paragraphs which talk about atrocities. Why do you want more? You are not helping yourself by merely restoring sock edits here. Source does not say "400,000 Hindu people" were killed, nor there is any relevance of "Maharashtra Purana". Since the page is not about atrocities, any deeply cherrypicked focus on atrocities is
  WP:UNDUE. If you want to restore any content then write it on your own by carefully verifying the source and avoiding any kind of repetition. I would also add that a number of the sources you are restoring are outdated. Editorkamran (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Editorkamran which sock you're talking about? The IP with which you were edit warring earlier has no block history. Please avoid accusing others of Sockpuppetry without any evidence, as it may lead you being indeffed.

  As for content, I cannot understand what are your exact objections over it. The section clearly discusses the Burgi war crimes, and it should cover all aspects of it. Nothing is WP:UNDUE as the sources are same over which whole article stands., neither I'm aware of any WP guidelines which requires me writing the content from scratch. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is a sock puppet. See here.

There are already 3 paragraphs which talk about atrocities. There is no need to add more. What you restored was almost 80% repetition of what already exists in the article. Editorkamran (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran your link only shows a user requesting increased page protection, and no evidence that IP was identified as a sock. Anyways, I think there should be no problem with additional content (excluding repetition) in the section. There is no policy that a section can not be of more than 3 paragraphs. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then go and report the person who concluded that the IP is a sock and also report the admin who agreed with the finding instead of creating your own imagination.

There is a policy called

WP:UNDUE. Read again, I am saying you cannot REPEAT the same content. I already said "What you restored was almost 80% repetition of what already exists in the article." Editorkamran (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:PERSONAL

, just identify the "80% parts" which you think were repeated Otherwise there is no reason for objection over the sourced content.

For example, there is no mention of rapes committed by Marathas in the current section nor of the resulting migration of people. If you failed to describe why you do not want these sections then I will move ahead for adding. Remember that

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the IP was dynamic, there was no need to block it as sock.

WP:ILIKEIT

was clearly your reason to restore repetitive content which misrepresents sources.

"Contemporary accounts of the invasions report mass gang rape against women, and mutilation of victims by the Marathas which included cutting off their hands and noses." This the only sentence which hasn't been mentioned. Everything else is already there. Editorkamran (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran socks are immediately blocked even if they are IPs. This is just your speculation that it was not identified as a sock because it was dynamic so that you can remove their edits. And no, I don't want the content in the section because "I like it" but because there is no justification for its removal. Except the 400,000 figure, no statement was repeated in the section. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph replicated earlier paragraphs.

"During their occupation, the Marathas are said to have perpetrated massacres against the local population" vs "During that period of invasion by the Marathas, warriors called as "Bargis", perpetrated atrocities against the local population of Bengalis and Biharis."

"Many of the Bengali Hindus in western Bengal also fled to take shelter in East Bengal, fearing for their lives in the wake of the Maratha attacks."vs "Many of the Bengalis in western Bengal also fled to take shelter in East Bengal, fearing for their lives in the wake of the Maratha attacks"

"Marathas intended to establish their rule in western Bengal by attracting the local Hindu zamindars against the Muslim Nawab but the high atrocities against the Hindu population diminished all the possibilities of such an alliance" vs "Zamindars outside the affected districts and also from the districts that involved this conflict were affected by the Maratha raids."

Entirely repetitive. Editorkamran (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran still there is no mention of mass rapes, which wee widely reported and are supported by credible sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said here. Have included it back now.[3] Editorkamran (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are fine. You grilled the chap Gibari Sultan well. I think he would have learnt his lesson. Thanks for the help. I am editing Swati page with Modern anthro and genetic proofs hope you wont mind. Too much edit wars on page. I would appreciate if you understand. Thanks for the help with this bully again I am really grateful. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

actual, historical people. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Sutyarashi. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is ___39.41.238.50____. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you can edit from other IPs as your account is not directly blocked, I am procedurally declining this request. It's difficult to get these blocks lifted as a practical matter; I would instead recommend you go to

WP:IPECPROXY and follow those instructions to request IP block exemption so this won't be a problem. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2023 (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.

Sutyarashi (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let the block expire. It's over in less than 4 days. The IP address has been confirmed rightly or wrongly, as using VPN. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: If you would look at the full block log for that IP you'd see that the block has regularly been reimposed. Hence the solution I have suggested to him, like so many others in this situation. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Punjabi Muslims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujrat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made revisions on the article of Arain, whereas it is written on the article that Arain are originally from Sindh who moved to punjab, so if according to you khokhars are native of punjab, then why can't Arain be native of Sindh? The fact that they still live in Sindh and speak sindhi as their first language. So stop reverting my edits. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 provide reliable sources stating Arains to be Sindhis. Origins matter little because humans can migrate from one place to other. Kalhoras, for example, are from Arabia. Does it mean that they are Arabs too? Sutyarashi (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the source is the

Arab Muslim armies encroached" now origin does matter, when such people still live in their native place, how can you not count them? Don't be biased, also how come in the case if khokhars origins matters but in Arain it doesn't, how? And for your kind info Kalhoras are not from Arabia, they are jats read the page again which mentions Kalhora to be of jats, as it was and is a trend for local people to be associated with arabs specially the kings and rulers. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@AngelicDevil29 provide references stating Arains to be Sindhis. Your talk page has multiple messages regarding that you should avoid unsourced claims, so you need to act on them. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if Kalhoras are actually from Arabia and some people of Kalhoras still live in arabia then of course they would be arabs. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on making unnecessary changes on langah and dodai, first you have issues with citations now you have issue with one word being written in first than other, you are funny. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 I have left message on your talk page. Read it so you can understand why your edits are disruptive. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you have your own rules, which I don't follow your so biased Tiggered person, is there any way to talk someone educated unbiased person regarding these two articles, I mean are you serious? Why you are hurting by having a sindhi name first than punjabi? 🤷🏻‍♂️ second the dodais tribes is by doda sumra, and sumras are sindhi, but I'm not mentioning dodais as sindhi they are merely branch of sumra as they are his descendants, and there are many baloch and punjabi tribes which have origins in sindh or are jats And are still living in Sindh, Dodai maybe assimilated into balochs in south Punjab but in Sindh they are not and there many sindhi hindu dodais living in India as well. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and apparently I seems you only believe in sources written by a person who is from Pakistan and India. Which makes difficult to find many citations . AngelicDevil29 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the book "the Musalman races found in Sind, balochistan and afghanistan" by sheikh sadiq a British raj book? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 yes, because not only it is outdated by a big margin (more than a century) it also depends on British surveys, all of which make it unreliable. So please revert your all additions on all pages which you have edited with such sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then there are not many sources out there and what's wrong with mentioning a century old book, I guess it must be better as it gives much earlier knowledge of the topic. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you made changes on ogahi page, the citations mentioned non of them support the content. On what basis you made changes? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also sane goes for lund you must provide any other strong sources until that you must revert these two articles to last revision. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Administrators' noticeboard. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

why? You first accepted the citation then later now you are not accepting it? Don't be biased, Wikipedia is not only for certain group of people, giving half information is not good. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTHERE. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have checked it where is it written on the citation? I dont find it to be based of Britain raj. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 read again on the bottom of page 6

. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And reply me about the changes you made on ogahi and lund pages, as the citations i mentioned there are not of British raj, neither they are too old. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 Add any recent academic source mentioning them as Sindhis and not just as living in Sindh, and I will not remove it. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will first you do the same mentioning langah to be punjabis living in Punjab? As the citations I have read non of them talk about them being Punjabis. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 all current sources mention them to be living in Punjab. As for being Punjabis, the reference is just next to it in the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Population by Geographical Levels: Punjab (including the Federal Capital Territory Islamabad) doesn't say they are punjabis, it only shows total langah. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so you must also write a rajput tribe living in punjab, don't make them punjabis, as the sources either mention them as afghans or sindhis, your content written is absolutely wrong and incorrect, I wonder how Wikipedia is letting you do this. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, on page 73. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Shadows of My Memories AngelicDevil29 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Shadows of My Memories

By Riffat Chaudhry · 2014" is this book is good to cite on a page? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelicDevil29 It seems to be a memoir, and not history. Also Riffat Chaudhary is not any established historian; I am unable to find anything about the author's professional career. So it can not be used as an academic cite.

A good start to find which sources are reliable can be found on wikipedia's guidelines about

reliable sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this citation, ok or is it also of raj (Census of India, 1911 Volume 7)? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this citation "https://sites.google.com/view/sindhstory/sindhi-society-and-culture" is this OK to be mentioned in any article? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First one is definitely a colonial source and second also seems highly unreliable, since it claims that

Phoenicians of Syria originated from Sindhis, a claim which has no proof, in addition to other inconsistencies. Online websites are not a great source for history, you should search for academic scholarship. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Despite sources not being Raj-era, why are you repeatedly removing text from Gurchani citing the same in edit summary? If there are other issues, enlighten me. Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krayon95 I didn't realize that you have replaced the references. Anyways, still the section is irrelevant to the article as it describes origins of Dodai tribe, not Gurchani. It has probably been copied from the main article on Dodai itself. Moreover, the section also does not make any mention of Gurchani, so it makes little sense to keep it. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi. The Gurchani article has been created by me and it would have been clear who copied from whom if there was attribution on Dodai article as the wiki requires. All the sources are valid and it pertains both to Gurchani and Dodai as its clear from the section. Do not misuse the revert function, you have no valid argument to do so. Krayon95 (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

you don't own it. The section nowhere mentions the Gurchani, I wonder why you want to keep it? You have also not given any convincing reason for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sutyarashi. How do you mean 'section nowhere mentions the Gurchani'? It certainly does. It literally describes their origin legend and formation of Dodai and Gurchani section among Baloch. Krayon95 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Ирука¹³ 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq the Independent Urdu clearly mentions the image to be in Public Domain. So it is clearly not any copyright infringement. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that note on the side. I've removed the speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant
  copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale
  .

A tag has been placed on

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant
  copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale
  .

A tag has been placed on

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Buddhist relics in Taxila museum.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rai Ahmad Khan Kharral.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gakhars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rohtas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shah Mir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article you citated is about old dards of Swat. At that time Swat was Known as Udyana which later changed. However Dards are mentioned Swatis in this article on the name of region. It don't have any connection to Gibari Rulers of Swat. They were descendants of Sultan Kehjaman Balkh according to their family traditions. CiteGuardian (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Baloch tribes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baloch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 August 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.Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was started by an obvious sock puppet but I thought you should be aware at least. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sutyarashi, I am just letting you know that I have reverted your latest revert on Islam in Pakistan. The content added by Derry87 has reliable sources backing it. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not about references, but the content added is indeed an issue: Shias of Pakistan have been particularly targeted and killed by machine guns and suicide bombers. In Pakistan, the environment in which minorities find themselves is characterized by an increase in hate speech, invocation of blasphemy laws, and brutal attacks on worshipers and holy places. Is. Pakistan is an Islamic country. However, now, not only non-Muslims but also sub-sects like Sufi, Ahmadi and Shia are being harmed

Couldn't find anything supporting these lines. The references are about general intolerance and one particular incident of sectarian violence, which has been already covered in the section. Seems like borderline

POV pushing. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Missed that completely, my bad. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Delhi Sultanate

added a link pointing to Hind

Mughal Empire

added a link pointing to Mandarin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mallian people, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Delhi Sultanate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hind.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kabul River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surobi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of countries with overseas military bases, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and 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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saidu Baba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hund.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reaching consensus with other editors and being a tireless contributor! Noorullah (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every edit of this user is a POV push. Please do the needful changes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to improve Swati tribe page with the referenced content like other tribes of Pakistan have. I shall be very thankful to you. Keep the Dardic thing as same but It's my humble request to make it more amazing to read. You can add data from the history of that page, when it used to be full of information. Thank you 206.84.144.32 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please leave making people Dards without proper genetic evidence. British aren't Scholars for you and so are Iranian and other classical sources so let's have a heart for genetics and Dental Morphology. Secondly Dards weren't Muslims at times of Sultanate of Swat, hope you Understand what Sultan is unless you are with Pashtun facisim. Azmarai76 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Azmarai76 please just cite reliable sources to support your claims. This is not a matter of "just leaving", Wikipedia does not works in this way. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had but I guess without even knowing who Dards are or even if they are one Society you deleted even the link to Genetic Study conducted by Tariq and Habib. None is a British servant like you said about Raverty and others. If we go by your standards we would have no mention of Dards while Swatis still have mentions. You have any idea why are these groups different genetically? AND I didn't see any reason for you to delete those references.

Azmarai76 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please do answer how only one dardic thing makes Dehgans Dards, despite the fact two population group are different. Give Reliable genetic evidence to your claim. That's all I am asking for.

Azmarai76 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is upon you to prove your claims, not on me. References stating Swatis to be Dardic are already there; it's upon you to provide sources stating them to be not. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well did it and you removed calling Raverty a "British servant" and Tabqat I Nasiri as primary sources. You still couldn't tell me why you removed the link to Genetic study by Tariq & Habib???

Azmarai76 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because these are not reliable sources. Raverty is WP:RAJ, while Tabaqat Nasiri is WP:PRIMARY. Cite any better source. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had and you removed them. I am putting in unreliable sources to it and you are removing them also. Your sources are unreliable too.

Azmarai76 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which of the present sources is not reliable, I will remove them. Also, none of the sources you added was WP:RS. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sutyarashi my friend I respect you please do read what I am writing I see you have little knowledge of Dards. They would call Swat Udhiyana in their times. Few Kapisa Dards must be calling themselves Tajiks but not all Tajiks are Dards.

Azmarai76 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come and discuss the topic 103.52.208.101 (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it. To avoid your edits being reverted in future, I would suggest you to create an account. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ubaydallah ibn al-Sari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sutyarashi I see you have dealt with this topic before I found this edit by this user quite interesting [4] its an Indian user who is using a very questionable source for a pov edit I went to the website and its using quotes from Wikipedia itself as a source! its one of those Indian disinformation websites with extremely unreliable information and only serves one purpose of misinformation how do these dubious sources and edits make it onto articles? Kuma-is-my-name (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Lite is quoting information from an earlier wikipedia version of Bacha Bazi from 2021 as evidence and the author is god knows who quite simply disinformation as expected from that nation Kuma-is-my-name (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Akora Khattak, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Akora Khattak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Punjabi dialects and languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I noticed you reverted my edits to previous version in Omani Baloch, If you notice in the sentence of of page content, the term of mercenary is not appropriate at all and it's considered as insult to a ethnic. I'd like to request to modify this term to a appropriate word. Regards. Balash-Vologases (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary: a private individual who joins an armed conflict for personal profit, is otherwise an outsider to the conflict, and is not a member of any other official military. That's what sources cited in the article state; this is not an insult and not a reason for its removal. As per sources, Baloch did indeed fought for Oman as mercenaries in exchange of money. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for clarification, anyway i translated it in persian and wait to approval by managers in persian section. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of largest companies in Pakistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest companies in Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pothohar Sultanate, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pothohar Sultanate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sistan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nagol0929 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagol0929 take a closer look at the matter. The IPs vandalising the page have been blocked already. Reverting blunt vandalism is by no mean edit warring and so there was no reason for you to leave this warning here. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi, @Sir Calculus

I am coming from WP:3O about active Active disagreement at Talk:Bhatti#Reliability of source.

• I am replying at user talk page who placed WP:3O request believing user talk page guidance may help calm down and help focus on specific content issues

1) First thing first, this is CTOP area. I am not going into merit who is right who is wrong. The best practice for everyone is to take steps back from any personal accusations at article talk pages and strike down any such pointed out sentences is strongly emphasized.

2) I advice both the users to provide synopsis to facilitate easier understanding of third opinion / input provider.

3) Prima facie Richard V. Weekes was an editor of relevant academic background but may be of earlier generation hence I suggest to check any updated reliable academic sources.

I am not much interested in ethnicity conflicts so unlikely go much further to remain involved. Still I hope above tips would help both the users to focus on content hereafter, that would help other well meaning users provide relevant inputs. Wish you happy editing to both of you. Bookku (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your advice.

I do not have issues with the article. I included the Weekes ref to support the text regarding the Sindhi Bhattis as they're common and deserve a mention. I myself am a Sindhi so I know Sindhi Bhattis personally. But that of course can't be used as a ref. A notable Sindhi Bhatti is Rasheed Bhatti, there exists a PhD thesis on him as well, if that makes a difference. There's also a local article on him.

My edit was as simple as including "Sindhi" and adding an academic ref to support it. I did not remove existing information from the article. I can add another recent ref but it is in Sindhi language, so it is better that an English language Weekes ref is used because it exists. The review in Modern Asian Studies also makes it more suitable to use. I do not want endless arguments with the other user. Cheers. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in also from the 3O listing - I strongly agree with Bookku that lowering the temperature is necessary here. If there are so few reliable sources speaking to the claims in question that the debate hinges on the reliability of a single source, consider including the claims with attribution, and noting any other RS that disagrees. If the source is seriously questionable (maybe

WP:RSN can help), I think that weighs in favor of excluding the claim until it's easier to verify. I think it is going to be very difficult for a non-expert to actually weigh in on the merits of either side here. StereoFolic (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Bookku and StereoFolic for providing your opinion. Caste-related topics are not prime area of my interest and expertise so for now I'm going to leave this issue as it is. Like I stated at article talk page before, if the reliability and relevancy of the source is established, I have no objections over its use. As for unhelpful comments there, I believe they can be removed. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Husseyn Langah I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pharwala Fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gakhar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gakhars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rawat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]