User talk:Noorullah21/2025

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of India. 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. @Ivanvector Noorullah (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		This award is given in recognition to Noorullah21 for conducting 794 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love

Assalamu Alaikum my brother, I am very happy to see your page. I'm Saddam Hussain Ansari from India, I also love a big fan of Hazrat Omar-III [Mullah Muhammad Omar Rahamatulahalaihi] , and all mujahideen of afghan Saddam19 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Indo-Greek 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Battle of Jamrud, you may be blocked from editing. Indo-Greek 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep to the talk page (of the page itself), see WP:ONUS. @HerakliosJulianus Noorullah (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Battle of Jamrud. Indo-Greek 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: ). Thank you. Indo-Greek 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southasianhistorian8

Please be aware that SAH is under a topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan articles, broadly construed, until June 2, 2025 or they make 500 substantial edits in other topic areas, whichever is later.

I can't be certain of the contents of the emails they've sent you, but considering that their only on-wiki activity since the TBAN was enacted was to try to lodge an appeal to an individual Arbitrator, I have enough of a hunch to advise you that WP:PROXYING says Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. @GhostOfDanGurney The content of what they sent me email wise was regarding an editor. (Not them trying to use me to Canvas, or so and so.) Noorullah (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Stop changing the results the afghans did not win the war. Stop being biased. The article itself says that the British sent a punitive force and destroyed the afghans and then the war ended. It's status quo ante bellum because the situation remained the same it's NOT an Afghan victory. If you're muslim and you're doing this stop it please. And please lets discuss this first 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have consensus for your change. If you keep edit warring against multiple editors, you will simply be blocked. Mellk (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article itself Panekasos (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's contradicting to the article so I change the result to stop it from being contradicting Panekasos (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result field

As I said in my edit summary "See Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"" Please stop you disruption and your inaccurate edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill

See MOS:VICTORY, we have clear results for the war.

No reason to omit the result. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not put either "X victory" or "Inconclusive", you put "Status quo ante bellum" with a misleading piped link. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill That was not me. (Intentionally). That was what the IP user kept trying to add. (See their previous reverts), I fixed it in the edit in seconds right after. [1]

This seems to just be a case where you and I got confused. I was trying to revert back to the "Barakzai Afghan Victory" version (but accidently restored the other one), and then I fixed it after. You seemed to think that I was trying to revert it to that version. Noorullah (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidly I thought you were trying to do what you actually did. I shall know better in future. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, all good. Have a nice day. @DuncanHill Noorullah (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

You should stop being biased just because is your country and you're a muslim . History never lies and Wikipedia is not very reliable anyway.The third Anglo-Afghan war was tactically a British victory but mot diplomatically. I will change the results because it's wrong spreading lies about these wars. Panekasos (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

It's bmvery bad that we are having a discussion and later you go request a protection to the page just because your feelings got hurt about your country. I will request it and have it removed. I don't know when but the result will change. Panekasos (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox order

You have asserted that because http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict the given infobox example places the victor on the left, the victor in a conflict goes to the left. Somebody has to go to the left and in that particular infobox, it just happened that the victor was on the left. The template documentation is silent on whether a particular party should go on either the left or the right. There is no good reason to change and the format first used should be retained - ie it is not something that should be changed. Please revert such changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 Is the example in the template not meant to be the best practice/an actual example of it?

-

Moreover, a significant amount of pages that I see have it in said layout. Maybe this should be something brought up (to discuss), as a matter of consistency? Noorullah (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of which belligerent goes on which side is arbitrary at the time the infobox is created. The template document makes no mention of which side goes on which side. If we did do this as a convention, what would we do when there was no stated victor? Do we put both sides on the left or both sides in the centre? As for bringing it up, why? There are better reasons to kill electrons. It ain't broke. It don't need fixing - except to stop people changing things that don't need changing. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sher Shah Suri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed rate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Third Anglo-Afghan 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. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the grind

Keep going bro, you'll prove that Afghanistan won the war. Koopinator (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

You can withdraw (keep) this via XFDcloser. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 23:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn’t make that clear enough? Sorry. I didn’t see the Admin kept relisting it, will do that in a bit. Noorullah (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, It's been 3 weeks lol. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garudam Err.. see this [2], but I'm sure it'll be closed as a result of no consensus nonetheless. Noorullah (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, nevermind then. – Garuda ^Talk! 08:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Bro, I am searching for a book. I want to know about Ahmad Shah Abdali's last years (1770-72) and his death. I can't read Ahmad Shahi or tell me which jild and page I read. Can you suggest a book or tell me about his last years? It's my request, bro. 2404:3100:1047:5D58:1:0:15D:81F0 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much information on his last years that can be classified as wholly reliable.

Some sources state that in his last years he suffered from a gangrenous Tumor that afflicted him

(Or it couldve been syphilis, malaria too I think?)

In 1770, he launched his final campaign in the Summer, invading Khorasan to put down an Afsharid revolt in Mashhad.

Eventually he died in 1772, in southern Afghanistan from his illness.

Some books I suggest are Jonathan Lee's "A History of Afghanistan 1260 to Present". Noorullah (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gunda Singh says he marched to Khurasan in 1183 A.H. (1769) and completed his campaign, returning in June 1770. I read in Gunda Singh's book that in 1771, when a letter came to him (I don't remember its details), he was busy with home affairs, among other matters.

Can you provide details about the Muslim eyewitnesses from Ahmad Shah's side about this matter? Because in Twitter I heard from a barmazid name guy that lee is garbage. 2404:3100:1047:8122:1:0:46E:7EF0 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of that would be reliable for Wikipedia. (Per WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. Noorullah (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durrani Campaign to Khorasan (1750-51)

Hello, you changed my edit, but I left three references for Afsharid's victory,This is the first campaign of Khorasan Ahmad Shah, who retreated under the siege of Mashhad and Neishabur, but defeated the Afsharians in his second campaign. Iranian112 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article?

“With the fall of Herat, Ahmad Shah continued his campaign into Khorasan, invading the Afsharids and besieging Mashhad, where he remained until November 1750. Attempts to storm the city by the Afghans were unsuccessful, and Lee and Gupta state that Shahrokh Shah surrendered to Ahmad Shah personally so he could raise the siege. Shahrokh Shah accepted Afghan suzerainty, paying large tribute and releasing members of Ahmad Shah's family.”

He was unsuccessful in besieging Nishapur, not Mashhad. Noorullah (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iranian112 Noorullah (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herat fell, but Mashhad was peace according to Gupta, and according to Noelle, however, the siege of Mashhad failed Iranian112 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21Noorullah21 Iranian112 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee and Gupta say Mashhad submit (Shahrokh), against Noelle’s opinion. Noelle also said he gave up the siege due to a “vision” to return years later, will specifically cite after. @Iranian112 Noorullah (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Durrani retreated from Khorasan due to high casualties and the reason for his next campaign to Khorasan was revenge for his first campaign Iranian112 (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21Noorullah21 Iranian112 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"But Durrani retreated from Khorasan due to high casualties and the reason for his next campaign to Khorasan was revenge for his first campaign" - Yes, but this was from his siege of Nishapur, not Mashhad.

Mashhad was brought to submission (Per the two opinions.) @Iranian112 Noorullah (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Third Anglo-Afghan War#RfC on result in the infobox

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have been made DS aware for this topic area. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 Thanks, was unaware of this. Noorullah (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghurid campaigns in India. 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. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]