User talk:Mydust

Mydust, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mydust! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Saraswati

Regarding edits like this one: please see WP:NOR. If you disagree with a published historian's assertions, please find another reliable source that disputes those assertions. utcursch | talk 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty

Hi

I saw you have been contributing to khalji dynasty page. The page have been vandalized. Can you restore it to your original edits. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.20.23 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 

Hi again.
I know you might be busy but there is a serious vandalism done in khalji dynasty page. It is known as turko afghan dynasty (as you edited it and put it on the opening too)

but it is changed to " a turkic dynasty" only. Also he have vandalized the origin section.It seriously undermines the integrity of wikipedia. All i am asking is to "undo" and warn the contributor of further violations. Hope something is done soon enough. Thank you.

May 2021

Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Bahmani Sultanate—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

August 2022

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Tughluq dynasty, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sayyid brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jai Singh. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Khan-i-Dauran

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Khan-i-Dauran. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Khan Dowran VII. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Khan Dowran VII. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Storchy (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Khan-i-Dauran Mydust (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mydust! Your additions to Sayyid brothers have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

you piss me off, thanks. I'll try to rewrite it per policy so don't block me Mydust (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

WP:HISTRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Mind explaining what page restriction of wikipedia policy I didn't follow? Mydust (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I know that you are lying.--Mydust (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Continue this uncivility, and you'll soon be blocked. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Mydust (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic rulers in the Indian subcontinent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

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

Syed Ahmad Barelvi

added a link pointing to Freebooter

Urdu-speaking people

added a link pointing to Durbar

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Muhammad of Ghor, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Packer&Tracker (talk ♀) 18:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mydust! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Muhammad of Ghor several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Packer&Tracker (talk ♀) 01:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

eat my dust Mydust (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Please do not use Copyrighted material as your did here. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

can u turn it into a new map? Mydust (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jaunpur Sultanate (removal of sourced content [1]). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Referencing

Please do not just add Google search results for groups of keywords for your references (this is invalid since Google can return pages with the -some- of the keywords, but very often without relation between each of them). You should describe the source, the page number, and give a readable link to the page when possible. When the page is not directly readable, please provide a quote of the sentence you are referencing (with the |quote= parameter inside the ref), so that it can be researched on Internet and the validity of the source easily verified. See example पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bahmani Sultanate (distortion of sources by claiming "Northern Indian origin", when the source only says they "migrated from Northern India": follow the sources strictly [2]). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Indian Muslim"

You seem to have an obsession with adding an "Indian Muslim" qualifier to members of Muslim dynasties in India ([3][4][5][6], among many other examples). This is highly misleading, as it suggests Indian ethnicity (which, for an invader, is hard to claim), or Indian nationality by virtue of their establishing themselves in India or even being born in India (which, especially at the time, makes no sense in the absence of nationality laws, including Jus soli). This sounds more like a weird attempt to muddle history, and claim that these invaders were really Indian, or became Indian, or that them or their dynasties were "Indianized dynasties" (discussed here), which does not make more much sense than saying that India was "Islamicized" or "Turkified" by these invaders, beyond mentioning these phenomena as a facet of cultural hybridation. Lastly, your "Indian Muslim" label does not appear in your sources, which is really not acceptable. This can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and might inevitably lead to a block from Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:NOTHERE). @Sutyarashi, Noorullah21, Utcursch, and RegentsPark: पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

>>>>>These examples you @पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) mentioned were indeed Indians, ethnically speaking: ([7][8][9][10]), and all of their sources point towards it.-----Mydust (talk)

1) Ziauddin Barani: Satish Chandra: "14th century Indian historian, Ziauddin Barani", [11], V. D. Mahajan: native of Baran in the Doab[12], even his 'ancestral' history goes towards the Indian village of Kaithal: "The ancestors of this noted historian originally hailed from Kaithal . When the family shifted to Baran ( modern Bulandshahr in U.P. )"[13] Arbind Das: "Barani never called himself Turk for one intention that he wanted to be an Indian than anything else."[14]. Medieval India Quarterly:Volumes 1-5, Mohammad Habib:"His ignorance of the geography of Central Asia and Persia is surprising...in his modes of thought and feeling he is hundred per cent Indian."[15]

2)Ikhtisan-i-Dabir Dehlavi: Professor Ahmad Nazir says: "Akhsatan's birthplace was Delhi whereby he is called al-Dehlawi. He is also called al-Hindi, which indicates from India. The author speaks very highly of his birthplace delhi. The great metropolis is his place of origin whose earth is soul rearing...." If Ahmad Nazir says that he was from India, from where are you to use the vague words 'muslim' or somethinge else? Professor Ahmad Nazir reciprocates the use of the word al-Hindi, by using the word "Indian" to describe Ikhtisan, "Among the contemporaries of the Indian Akhsatan"[16] so it is completely unjustified for you to reject the use of the word "Indian" to describe him in the introduction, which is opposite to what Ikhtisan describe himself and the historians describe him, based on some false notions.

3)Madurai Sultans: The fact that all historians agree that Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan was a native of the village of Kaithal, and belonged to the clan of the Sayyids of Kaithal, is enough for the qualifier "Indian Muslim". "Kaithali" in the "Kaithali Sayyid" refers to a clan that's specific to India, just as the "Bilgrami Sayyids" are not considered Arabs but an Indian muslim community of Bilgram, as is the case for the 'Barha Sayyids', 'Amrohi Syeds', etc. Not to mention the name of Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan's successor as king was 'Alauddin Udauji Shah', which is a name of Hindu origin. In fact, Barani was himself a Sayyid of Kaithal(but born in Baran),[17], but "But his family must have been living in India for many generations and lost all contacts with foreign lands, long before these relations were severed by the Mongol invasions....in his modes of thought and feeling he is hundred per cent Indian.."[18]-Mohammad Habib. If Mohammad Habib's claim applies to Barani's family, who were Sayyids of Kaithal, then it would equally apply to Kaithali Sayyid family of Sayyid Hassan Kaithali/Jalaluddin Ahsan Shah of the Madurai Sultans. I am indeed highly justified in calling Sayyid Hassan Kaithali/Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan, an ethnic Indian. As there is no source directly using the words "Indian Muslim" though, I do not need to add that he was an 'Indian Muslim" per se, but it is needed to specificy his nisba(origin) that he was a "Kaithali", as he is referred to as "Sayyid Hasan Kaithali", or "Hasan Kaithali". Qanungo emphasizes his links to the town of Kaithal and its inhabitants: "Sultan ordered a general massacre of the Sayyids of Kaithal and all the Muslims on account of his spite against Hasan."[19] It would be better to indicate some kind of origin, such as "the madurai sultanate was founded by dynasty of kaithali origin", rather than simply "muslim" in the absence of any other origin

3)Bahmanids: Notwithstanding the first Bahmanid Sultan 'Hasan Gangu's descent, where Gangu is an Indian cognomen, see the descriptions of the founders of the kingdom in general:

Richard Eaton not only specifies the term "North Indian" settlers, or "North Indian immigrants" to describe the founders of the dynasty : "On the one hand, the court was obliged to patronize the descendants of those north Indian settlers who had migrated to the Deccan in the fourteenth century, and who, rebelling against Delhi, had launched the dynasty"[20], and not only reiterates those who had revolted against Delhi were: "North Indian immigrants who had settled in the Deccan from the 1320s" but specifies that they were characterized by their speech of "an early form of Hindavi called Dakani."[21] The historian Jamal Malik uses the words 'local' or 'North Indian Muslim' to describe the founders of the Bahmanid state: "change of capital to Daulatabad(1337) proved to be the most important vehicle by which North Indian Muslim ideas and institutions crossed the Narmada. The status of being a tributary to the Sultanate was deeply resented by the local Muslims, culminating in the revolt by Deccani nobles led by Ala al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah in 1347, eventually establishing an independent kingdom called the Bahmani kingdom."[22]

But more important than 'north indian', is the key word "Deccani". Even after the descendents of the North Indian settlers in the Bahmanid state adopted a south Indian 'Deccani' identity', as according to Roy Fischel, they "aimed to distinguish themselves from their North Indian ancestors and later from the Foreigners", he points out that nonetheless: "The attitudes of the Deccan Sultanates towards their neighbours reflect some of the sensitivities of the Deccanis within the local political system. More than any other group, the Deccanis were associated with the Deccan Sultanates...This framing enables us to locate the Deccanis within their environment as the most dominant group when it comes to determining the direction of the Sultanates."[23] Richard Eaton: "If the Deccanis manifested a colonial idea, namely a society composed of transplanted settler-founders and their descendants, the Westerners represented a cultural idea: a refined style of comportment, an eminent tradition of statescraft, a prestigious language". The Sultanate was defined by its founding by the Deccanis and their North Indian ancestors; therefore the term "Sunni Persianate" in the current introduction in the page is an incomplete definition of the Bahmanid Sultanate, because Persianate is not an ethnicity, but solely cultural. Fischel says that regarding the 'Persianate' element: "Their continous transient nature emphasises the weakness of their vertical connections to the political structure."[24] This is why Fischel emphasizes that the Deccanis i.e. the Deccani Muslims were the most associated with the political structure, and the 'most dominant group' when it comes to determining the direction of the Sultanates. Overton: "consequently more than other elites [Deccanis], the Foreigners were dependent on the conditions of the host courts themselves. Once a court lost stability, direct patronage, employment, and defense dwindled, the Foreigners left."[25] Threfore it is necessary to emphasize the Deccanis' as being the strongest in association with the identity of the political structure, while the 'Persianate' in contrast had weak connections to the political structure of the Sultanate. Therefore, instead of incomplete descriptions such as 'Persianate state' which could apply to almost everything from the Tipu Sultan to Ilkhanids, not only should it be designated an Indo-Muslim state as Richard Eaton does[26]. but ethnically it is more appropriate specify the word 'Deccani' when describing the Bahmanid kingdom, relating to the Deccani Muslim people, with a Persianate or Indo-Persian culture as Eaton says the Bahmanid court was obliged to patronise those descendents of 'North Indian' settlers who had "launched the dynasty". Yaaminey Mubayi: "The Deccanis...enabled the founding of the kingdom"[27]

To sum up for the rest of the points, I have cited my sources well. What I recognize is that Wikipedia editors, in the absence of evidence of a Muslim in India being ethnically foreign, would rather use vague buzzwords such as "Muslim", "Persianate", or even "Hindu convert", anything except the word "Indian Muslim", for which there is some kind of allergy apparently, as if there was no such thing as an Indian Muslim before the 21st century. I do not need to specify the word 'Indian Muslim' but their origin, specifically, 'kaithali', 'deccani', 'dehlawi', should indeed be emphasized instead of erasing all links to Indian Muslims in bad faith.-----Mydust (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Mydust

You are generally confusing ethnicity with place of birth or place of provenance. In History, we generally do not qualify people just by their place of birth: Timur, although born in Sogdia and hailing from Sogdia, was not Sogdian, his descendance, although born in Iran is not "Iranian". The rulers of the Yuan dynasty are Mongols, despite being born in China. From a methodological standpoint, your references with Google keyword searches are invalid: a good reference requires you to provide access to the page in question, or give an actual quote, so that the quote can be checked by other users. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't merely name their place of origin, in the case of Barani, he is described explicitly as an Indian by Mohammad Habib, Arbind Das, and Satish Chandra, referring to his family. Same goes for Ikhtisan Dabir Dehlavi by Ahmad Nazar who describes him as an Indian, not a Turk or a Persian or an Arab, and same goes for the Bahmanids who are described as North Indians and Deccanis. And I have explicitly written down all the quotes on this talk page. If you're still complaining about your old point about 'place of birth isn't the same as ethnicity', then it seems you haven't read any of my sources where they describe in detail what their outlook was, and disingenously push a refuted point, and giving strawman arguments about Timur which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Notice how you have cited 0 sources related to the topics being discussed and bring strawman arguments about other countries. I need to ask you why you are threatening to get me blocked, and who will agree to block me when I have shown all the quotes from the sources I cite. Mydust (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm. Mydust, why do you need to add muslim specificity to various articles? In addition to the ones I've pointed out at Indian rebellion of 1857, I notice "North Indian Muslim soldier" at [28]. Isn't all this overly specific? --RegentsPark (comment) 06:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here Mydust (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked at your other edits, but your additions here are not relevant. There is a separate article on the Sayyid Brothers - them being Urdu-speaking Indian Muslims from Sadaat-e-Bara is not relevant to the article on Dost Mohammad Khan of Bhopal. It's like stating that Nehru was a Kashmiri Pandit in Sino-Indian War or specifying that Barack Obama is black in the Drone strikes in Pakistan. Just because a fact is sourced doesn't make it suitable for addition to any article. utcursch | talk 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-nation theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit to Two-nation theory has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Copland was not removed contrary to your false claims. Stop fabricating excuses to justify your edit warring and WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shuja-ud-Daula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bani Isra'il.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sayyid into Shaikhs in South Asia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Warning

You believe that making false allegations and edit warring will pave your way.

I already warned you last time not to engage in this WP:DE.

Now better self-revert. This is Wikipedia and we abide by WP:CON which you clearly lack. If you don't self-revert yourself then I will need to report you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your edit to Muslim nationalism in South Asia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mass created single source articles

I would suggest that you stop creating many articles are based on single sources. these articles tend to be relatively poorly written. I heavily suggest you make them in draftspace and then suggest it for creation when the article has been refined. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

the article wizard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard) is available to help you with drafting. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Khagan Expedition moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Khagan Expedition. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Another article you may want to draftify is: Operations against the Baizai (1849)

it has many of the same problems as the other articles, few sources, unencyclopedic style, etc. it is decently detailed though and has a proper infobox at least. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This article's title is inappropriate. Please submit it to WP:AFC for a proper review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mydust,

Only articles written by you refer to a group you call "Hindustani fanatics". There is no article on this group on Wikipedia. Please find a more appropriate way to identify this group, hopefully one supported by other artion Wikipedia. This sounds very un-NPOV and like a slur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The self-label used by the group I called 'Hindustani Fanatics' is actually Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah, but none of the reliable sources refer to them by that name. All sources use the generally accepted term, 'Hindustani Fanatics', for example, Kaushik Roy: "The 'Hindustani Fanatics' were a group of emigre Muslims - most of whom originated from British India - who established a colony on the frontier in the 1820s." The Victorians at War, 1815-1914: An Encyclopedia of British Military History says "was assembled near Nowshera to punish the Hindustani Fanatics and their accomplices." Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire(1904-1924) says: "Some of the 'Hindustani Fanatics' were involved in border skirmishes in 1915" Mydust (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as the names as capitalized as Hindustani Fanatics rather than writing hindustani or indian fanatics in lowercase, I think the message would fairly come across as a historically used title or label rather than a 'slur'. Mydust (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it really a self-label? There's no doubt that the label existed as a nineteenth century epithet. See for example Mark Condos' peer-reviewed paper from 2016 or this from 2005 But they describe it as a term the British applied to the group, not as one the group applied to themselves. Either way I think if you spelled this out in the article, and included some non-Raj era refs like the ones I linked to here, you may be able to get the draft re-reviewed. Otherwise, unfortunately its likely to stay in AfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I said that the Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah is a self-label. But the Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah is also a reformist movement not solely pertaining to militancy, so I thought that "Hindustani Fanatics" was a lot more specific as a title as it specifically refers to the presence of indian migrant colonists rather than just a religious idea. I will explain in that article when I have time. Mydust (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Your submission at Articles for creation: Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) (May 19)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scientific racism on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Khagan Expedition (May 19)

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

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urdu-speaking people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bani Isra'il.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Operations against the Jadoon (1864) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Operations against the Jadoon (1864), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. In addition, please read WP:CIT about what information needs to be included in footnotes in order so that they pass WP:VERIFY.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) 2 (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JML1148 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854) 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Jalal Khan Rohilla moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Jalal Khan Rohilla. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and the sources do not substantiate the assertions in the article - most worryingly, that of the foundation of Jalalabad in Rohilla's name, which is not an etymology referred to in the main article. Please ensure that sourcing is clear and that the sources are properly reflected in the article before resubmitting via AfC. . Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bahmani Sultanate. 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. Noorullah (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring and block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

block evasion? @Daniel Case:RegentsPark (comment) 20:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP for a month and commensurately extended the block here. Will log those actions at CTOPS as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrongful accusation of block evasion. @Noorullah21 has been in an edit war since July 9 with some user with the IP address: 103.120.71.93. I only noticed the disruptions and got into an edit war with Noorullah starting July 16, after which I was immediately blocked for 48 hours(FYI I had not been given a change to respond to the notice on the admin message board before i was blocked) and I had not made a single edit since. So it is not accurate to claim that every new guy that @Noorullah21 gets into an edit war with is considered to be me, when I only joined this recently and Noorullah has been in an edit war for over a week. I am also concerned that if this user continues to get into an edit war with other people I will be accused again as collateral. Mydust (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get edit warring for over a week from. The only edit warring comes from you when you do not continue to further discuss on the talk page of the article, your edits that caused the edit war were on the 15th, and it ended on the 16th when you got blocked for edit warring esp off of 3RR in a 24 hour period by doing over 4 reverts.

If your talking about the IP, the diff you linked has no correlation (?), and it was not an edit war, rather disruptive editing that the IP had done by editing the origins without adding a proper citation to it. The IP's edits were reverted numerous times on the page of Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah not just by me, but other editors as well. This was then done on the Bahmani Sultanate page after they also tried editing there.

I never accused you of being said IP, that was Daniel's judgement there. Noorullah (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, as was explained in the noticeboard, other contributing factors that led to your block were for incivility as shown here [29] and on your talk page in the "Important notice" subheading. [30] Noorullah (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have discussed the issue on the talk page, so the claim that I was in an edit war without further discussing on the talk page is false, and I was no more in an edit war than you were. AFAIK the reason I was blocked was because of previous "incivility" on my talk page, and not because of my edit warring. But that is irrelevant, my only concern is that I was wrongfully accused of block evasion and might be accused again. Mydust (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In the noticeboard, I mentioned that you talked on the talk page, but still continued to edit the page without any regard for discussing or hashing out confusion or details first. When I further responded, you did not respond and still made edits to the page, which is why I did the 3RR report. You also did this in the past at the Khalji dynasty page as shown in the noticeboard.

I see your concern, and I will conclude what I am saying but it is relevant when you are actively pinging me which is involving me in this. Noorullah (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK the reason I was never blocked, including after the dipute on the khalji page, was because I gave up and walked away so as to resolve the dispute each time. I don't know why you are bringing up a previous dispute where I clearly conceded and withdrew from the dispute. Mydust (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you don’t understand. You were blocked because you kept making edits despite not reaching a consensus in the talk page. You’re supposed to hash out any disputes in the talk page, instead you kept reverting the page to your preferred edit which I’m also going to discuss in the talk page soon. On top of this, there was numerous other issues which led to your block. And this isn’t the first time you’ve done such a thing. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not discussing the reason for why I was blocked, I am discussing why I am mistaken for other people. And it seems you seem to be discussing about the khalji dynasty or the delhi sultanate, where like I said, I withdrew from each dispute. In this case, or the Bahmanid case, the reason I "kept making edits without reaching consensus", was because 1)I gave my input on the talk page 2)I conceded to adding Noorullah's sources, and was an act of seeking compromise or consensus through editing, and was NOT an attempt to continue the edit war. At this point, I attempted to create a new consensus and did not insist on the same version for more than 3 edits. Noorullah got impatient and reported my anyways to the admin board. Again, since it was a 48-hour block, I am not interested in disputing the block, I am only concerned that I am mistaken for continuing to edit war, which is untrue as I should not be assumed to be every other person that Noorullah gets in a dipuste with over this week. Also, since you are an active participator in edit warring on exactly the same topics, I feel I am unjustifiably "ganged up" on. Mydust (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

First I’m going to focus on your accusation that I’m an active participant on edit warring as you claimed. Because this is really dishonest. For one, I didn’t even receive a warning for edit warning so your premise is entirely incorrect. Secondly, that warning was a complete misunderstanding that we cleared up in the khalji page. Both me and drmies came to an agreement by the end, and if you looked at the talk page of the khalji dynasty you would know this.

Talk:Khalji dynasty

basically I only received this warning because I forgot to write “see the talk page” on my edit summary(again it was a misunderstanding that we reached a conclusion on). That’s it. You’re trying to discredit me when I literally have never received a warning for edit warring.

As for the rest of what you written, I find it really unlikely that a random IP without any activity until yesterday right after you got blocked, would just waltz in and change the articles contents to your preferred edit. Now you can fight that point with Daniel if you’d like but like him I highly doubt the IP doesn’t belong to you.

Finally there was your edit warring with noorullah. This is not how you reach consensus. it seems like you’re trying to argue your way out of this when that’s not going to work. You were engaged in edit warring and this isn’t the first time you’ve been warned for something like this.

1. Correction, you gave minor input in the talk page and refused to use it further despite the fact that noorullah kept hounding you to join the discussion in the talk page. You posted your edits without reaching a consensus and there was clear disagreements that you didn’t even try to hash out. You also portrayed WP:ICANTHEARYOU there because you largely ignored majority of the sources cited by noorullah and you ignored his attempts to converse in the talk page with you.

2. You didn’t “concede” just because you added his sources. That’s not how compromise work. If you wanted to reach a compromise, you should have discussed this with him in the talk page which you failed to do. You still added a bunch of information that mostly corresponded with your preferred edit without reaching a conclusion with anyone.

3. please read the flow chart you sent. You didn’t “create a new consensus”. That’s not what consensus means. You can’t just come up with a consensus by yourself. When there is a disagreement, you discuss this with the people you disagree with, you don’t just continue reverting the article to your preferred edit which is what edit warring is.

with all due respect, the block was well deserved. This type of behavior was seen on multiple different pages and it’s only now that your getting punished for it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You're just adding extra words. I am not interested in arguing with you. I just care that I'm accused of a random IP address arguing with Noorullah being me, when there were a bunch of other IP's already having an argument with Noorullah for a week. Surely there is an easy way for administrators to check what I do, rather than making it a contest of doubting or opinions? ; Also i dont know what you mean by "punished for behavior on multiple pages". I was blocked because of incivil replies on my own talk page, which I would like to retract. All the other disputes on other talk pages, I have withdrawn from whenever it was unresolved. AFAIK a block is a preventative measure to prevent disruption, not a punishment.Mydust (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not just adding extra words, I’m explaining why everything has transpired and how your accusations against me were unfounded.

But sure we can just focus on the fact that you’ve been blocked for 30 days. You can bring up that issue to Daniel, but personally I can see why he assumed the IP belonged to you considering the fact that the IP wrote in your preferred edit and it literally happened right after you got blocked. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed disingenus to single me out in a continuous process from July 9 to 17. Speaking only for me, I clearly entered because of large contentious changes on the page. Mydust (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is I’ve already explained in detail why you were blocked which you didn’t respond to. You’re not being singled out for no reason. You’re being singled out because you violated various wiki rules and guidelines. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mydust: That's a bit tough. There are people who do have the ability to determine whether you have any connection to the IP address, but they can't exactly do so without violating your privacy (and so won't; even if you ask). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla So now that Mydust is outed for being a sockpuppet, is it possible his revisions and the pages he created can be deleted? Noorullah (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

also pinging @Daniel Case for this possibly? Noorullah (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as noted below I have made the block indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Wrongful accusation of block evasion. On July 16, I got into an edit war with @Noorullah21 after which I was immediately blocked by Daniel Case for 48 hours(before given a chance to talk on the admin's message board). But as soon as @Noorullah21 continued to get into get into an edit war with other users on the page, I was accused and my block has been extended for over a month. This accusation is false, as @Noorullah21 has been in an edit war with other users including IP:103.120.71.93 since July 9 and I only noticed and joined the dispute with Noorullah on July 16. It is not accurate to claim that every other user like in July 17 who gets into a dispute with Noorullah is actually me, when the latter has been in an edit war over a week and I had only joined this recently. It is also concerning if I will be accused again if he gets into edit wars with more people. I am not interested in disputing the reasons for my initial block, even if I disagree, but I wish to dispute the reason used to extend my block for a month, which is mistaking me with other people. I would like to contribute to the discussion on the talk page to resolve any resolution or withdraw from the dispute. Mydust (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to Talwarman. Yamla (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Per this I have now made the block indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand.@User:Yamla, the existence of an account that has been disused or abandoned for years-six months, by definition, is a legitimate use of (WP:VALIDALT). The whole reason I created the new account, Mydust, was to act with better understanding of the editing experience in comparison to a new user's perspective, as I was new when using that account, and the old account Talwarman has not been subject to any bans, blocks or sanctions. It was not an attempt at sockpuppetry. I fail to see why this is been treated as a "gotcha" moment, when this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was under the impression that admins can see everything I do, instead of acting under the policy of block first and ask questions later. It is my mistake I did not use the 'retired' tag, but I did not know such a thing existed. Mydust (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty easy to see you didn't abandon Talwarman. For example, see this edit, an edit you made with your other account minutes after this one from this account. Nor did you follow these instructions: "Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sockpuppet." Indeed, the overlap is almost complete, see here. --Yamla (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:Yamla Look I understand what I did wrong since u can see me better but my intention was definitely to abandon it where I didn't follow the instructions properly. For example, after the one you linked, the latest time I used Talwarman which was 4.5 months ago, there is a 2-year long gap until 2021 where I made exactly 2 edits such as the Mughal empire edit, where I switched between Mydust and Talwarman within a few minutes, all I did was add an extra "==" for styling the page, another one was a random comment on a talk page, and again there is a year-long gap until July 2020, which was probably the time I had "abandoned" the account. These edits were done out of convenience where I would sign in the wrong username while using a different device out of habit. They were not a deliberate attempt to impersonate two different people or abuse the account. Like you can clearly see a pattern i would login into the old account Talwarman every July of some year where I'd make a single edit, because that's the time my vacation would start, and then I would realize I'm on the wrong account and go back to using Mydust consecutively. I realize I broke the rules with those edits, mind you I had never read them, my point I was not acting in bad faith. Mydust (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mydust, well, that's still sock-pupettery. I think the best way for you out there is to make a new unblock request; and to apologize for this by explaining why this happened. It does seem that though you didn't really abandon the previous account, your intentions were not to create a sock. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854)

Hello, Mydust. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Expedition against the Hindustani Fanatics (1854), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)