User talk:Ratnahastin

Emergency user slap button

Editors: Use this button if the user is malfunctioning. (direct link)
Editors can a malfunctioning user to Wikipedia talk:Village stocks.

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

I'm not a regular at AfD - does a close of "No Consensus" mean you can "blank the page, delete its history, and redirect"? Especially when you yourself were the nom? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 03:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"No consensus" means there is no agreement over any outcome. Since enough editors supported drafting and title change I went along with that. Also see this discussion. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But you have not just draftified the article. You've redirected the draft to another article which carries over no material that discusses the specific dynamic between Rajputs and Mughals. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading it more closely, it appears the new article indeed includes it, but under Political marriages in India#Kachwahas, which seems pretty random to me. Why aren't the Mughals under their own section? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You are free to create a section of Mughals for the instances that involved political marriages. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do! I will be busy until August though.

Could you also explain why you went through a roundabout process of draftifying the page (in the process getting the original title deleted), changing the draft title, and then mainspacing the new title with "newly" created redirects from the old title? Now when you click on Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (and go to the page itself, not the Political marriages page) and check its history, it appears as though "Rajput Mughal marriage alliances" never existed and was only created by you as a redirect. I don't have much experience with forking and merging articles (the only one I've ever done is New Parliament House, New Delhi which was a fairly straightforward affair) so I want to know if this is a normal thing to do.

Lastly, I don't know why you called this section SYNTH. All of it is cited to recent books and follows a logical order (although poor in prose). WP:SYNTH refers specifically to original research that combines facts from multiple sources to make a claim that no single source did - aka doing the work of a secondary source. I do not see how that could possibly apply to the lead section that you removed. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandra Larosa

Hi, I wanted to warn you that the draft that you rightly rejected (among other things badly titled but that's the least of the problems) actually replicates an article already present on the English Wikipedia, Roxelana. Sira Aspera (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding deletion discussion on Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27) article

Hi,

The article Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27) has been proposed for deletion .

You may participate in the deletion discussion of this article.

Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)