User talk:Noorullah21

300xp

Notice to all users on my talk page

Welcome to my talk page, feel free to discuss things with me here, ranging from disputes, or questions, etc. After the problem has been solved, your comment here will likely be removed and added to my archives section, or my sub-pages, depending on of course, what you came here for.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

.

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)

.

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)