User talk:Insha22

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Insha22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insha22, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Insha22! 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 Blaze The Wolf (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Insha22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. – Uanfala (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced changes[edit]

Hello, I'm Uanfala. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Uanfala (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the content to correct it. Porus is indeed a Pakistani king. He’s literally born in modern day Pakistan. I don’t know why he’s mentioned as an Indian king Insha22 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the citations with what I’ve added. Kindly stop removing my changes in content. Thankyou. Insha22 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have used [1] describes Porus an "an important ruler in the Indian subcontinent during the 4th century BCE", and it adds that he ruled over "Punjab in what is today Pakistan". The text doesn't describe the ancient king as Pakistani, because in the 4th century BCE Pakistan did not yet exist. Of course, the places are within the modern-day borders of the state of Pakistan, but describing any of the people at that time as "Pakistani" would be an anachronism. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? At that time India didn’t exist either. India was created a day after Pakistan on 15th august 1947. And India, refers to the land of Indus river which 90% of it is in Pakistan. Atleast, study our geography and history before making such claims Insha22 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the name of Ancient Egypt was Kemet, however the people of that land and their history is known by their modern name. Whatever land Egypt covers, the history figures of that land are called ancient Egyptians not ancient Kemets. And Indian Subcontinent itself has gone through various names. However, the modern name of the region is Pakistan hence its figues and history belongs to that land and their people. Insha22 (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day country India itself has borrowed the name for its country from a Pakistani Indus River. By calling someone from Pakistani history as Indian is misinformation. Insha22 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the historic area around the Indus River is not known as Pakistan, it's known as (Ancient) India, even though this term is ambiguous with the modern country. And anyway, it's not up to us to decide what is the best usage, we need to follow the reliable sources. On an unrelated note, you need to know about the three revert rule: it's against the rules to make more than three reverts on a single page in 24 hours. If you do that, you're likely to get blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient India is Modern-day Pakistan. The word India itself was meant to refer the land of Indus River and Indus River is in Pakistan. You can search the map of Indus river which entirely flows through our land. Also, modern day India is a new country that came from our subcontinent which is located in Ganges Plains. So, it’s not even in Indic plains for it to claim any Indic History. Check our history and geography and see which region is Indic and which is Gangetic. And thanks for letting me know of the three revert rule. I’m new on wiki so I didn’t know. I just want the people to be credited rightly for their history. Insha22 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is possible that you're right and everybody else here is wrong. But we can't establish that by making original arguments (that's against the policy on original research). The only way to do that is by looking at what is written in reliable, scholarly sources. If indeed those sources consistently refer to the ancient king Porus as a Pakistani, then we will change our articles to match that usage. – Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you changing contents on Gandhara and removing Hindko as a dialect of Prakrit when in Hindko history pages it is a dialect of Prakrit as well as Hindkowans are the native people and Descendants of Gandhara so it doesn’t make sense for you to remove the Hindko as its dialect. And you’re literally Indian washing Gandharan History. I’ve seen you put content on that page to relate my civilization to your land ganges which is not even a part of my civilization. What’s going on with this Indianization? Insha22 (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. LearnIndology (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Austronesier (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. LearnIndology (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing, improperly sourced edits, WP:OR nationalistic posturing.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources[edit]

Please read WP:CITE. We do not cite sources by adding phone numbers. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." I'm afraid sticking a phone number into a page just will not suffice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back[edit]

Insha22, you appear to be engaging in the same sort of behaviour that got you blocked one week ago. Please, for your own sake, have a read of WP:RS, and please figure out what's causing your device to always insert those telephone numbers into articles. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which phone number? I’m literally putting the links of articles which you’re purposely removing because you can’t digest the truth Insha22 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to History of India—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. Serols (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continued disruption. You've picked up where you left off prior to your last block with poor sourcing and battleground behaviour. This response in particular makes it clear you're still oblivious to our sourcing requirements, NPOV policy, and the need to edit collaboratively with others. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]