User talk:Asr99.0979

Welcome!

Hello, Asr99.0979, 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 to the page Sri Lankan Civil War 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. - SUN EYE 1 16:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Dogra–Tibetan War seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion , but still i dont agree with you , The edit which i have done was completely right without any error Asr99.0979 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Kashdara (January 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires more sources - WP:AFC normally looks for WP:THREE sources minimum.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Kashdara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Battle of Kashdara, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

SamHolt6 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asr99.0979! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SamHolt6 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Muhammad of Ghor into Draft:Battle of Kashdara. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Mal

If Rajput is not a clan, why do we have Rajput clans? Doug Weller talk 09:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput is not a clan but Rajput community has clans , there is difference between both , If Rajput is a clan then what is the Head - Community of Rajput ? For example , Kachwaha is the clan of Rajputs, so kachwaha is a clan name while Rajput is Community , Think about that Asr99.0979 (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Asr99 is correct. Rajput is a caste in which there exist many prominent clans (and perhaps numerous other clans that nobody knows about). I reverted it because it looks like some Rajput POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It does indeed like Rajput pov pushing. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are fast using up all your get-out-of-jail-free cards. If you want to make any more infobox changes, please propose them on the talk page, explain your reasons, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. No more unsourced and unexplaned edits! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput clans

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)-LukeEmily[reply]

Recently I have added Rajput clans which was the main requirment of article and I hope you are agree with that , Now I want to edit which you removed ( if you agree ) , You recently edited that " Rajputs do not actually descend from these lineages, and genealogies were fabricated in a process called Rajputization " , I want to tell you it is not universally accepted concept , There are many Rajput clans which are clear decendents of Solar and Lunar clans and there are many reference of this , After 18th century many tribal and dalit groups tried to adopt Rajput surname after which " Rajputisation " came into existence , So we should not have to mention entire Rajput community as result of Rajputisation in this article

Reply if you agree , so then I proceed Asr99.0979 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have citation you can feel free to add to the page, but Rajputization is about main Rajput community itself. I have not studied the Dalit community of India in detail but to the best of my knowledge, they do not make Rajput claims. There are communities like Noniya Chauhans that do claim to be Rajputs but these claims may not be accepted by other Rajputs. A failed Rajputisation is if a community tries to claim to be Rajput but fails. A successful Rajputization is if the community or family gets accepted as Rajput. I have added 5 references to the top of the Rajput clans page, please can you check their quotes.LukeEmily (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you but Rajputisation mostly apply on those tribal castes who had no Rajput background just like Noniya , I have never heard of anu failed Rajputisation , The Original Rajputs never came under Rajputisation and it is even logical , The Rajput community in medival era was formed after coalition of several royal ruling clans , The Rajput was started after that so we can't call this Rajputisation because such coalition was not existed before that , They all were ruling people's and there is no proof of any tribal or shudra background , So mostly Historians only consider Rajputisation as result of adoption of Rajput surname by tribal castes after 18th century , Yes we also comes some sort of rajputisation before 18th century but it doesn't apply on entire Rajput community because it is not logical , Rajputisation can only possible if the community name " Rajput " exist before that , I hope you will agree with my perspective , I don't want to remove any citation or reference , I only want to add and edit regarding Rajputisation which you removed ( I will add more citations regarding that ) Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add your edit with proper citation? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i have edited with proper citations you can check Asr99.0979 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rajput clans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bais. 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) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correction , i will edit it Asr99.0979 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rajput into Rajput clans. 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) 21:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal-Rajput Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Thanks for suggestion Asr99.0979 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 16:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say stuff like this. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark sir i still didn't understand what did i wrong but i apologize , that user was continuously doing BLP violations which is against wikipedia policy, when I said you are targeting authors WP:SCHOLARSHIP and putting your personal opinions he misunderstood that by Personal attack , when I have shared information from contemporary sources he called them " Bardic tales"

I will improve myself next time and will try not to use the word "Personal" Asr99.0979 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"reading disabilities" is not a productive way to conduct a discussion. Comment on content, not on the user. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark Sir i have wrote "You to have reading disabilities" , that user first targeted me by saying " reading disabilities " after that i only repeated that thing, i didn't said that first Asr99.0979 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the provocation, you shouldn't respond in that manner. But, you're right, you were responding and not initiating. I've unblocked you. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark Thank you for your understanding, i will control my emotions next time and will follow wikipedia policies Asr99.0979 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Prithviraj Chauhan and Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan) because of tendentious editing at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan, including posting long, repetitious diatribies (33K of text over the past fortnight) interspersed with personal attacks ("i hope you know how to read") despite previous warning and a block in that area.

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 ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare Sir the same thing was done by that user whom you didn't blocked, i also presented the same counter arguments with sources but don't know why I am blocked, the same reference from legacy section which he quoted from that article mentioned the territories in Pakistan , Uttrakhand , HP etc. but even after that he kept repeating the same thing against that reference, please read his comments as wel Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asr, if you have any questions about your partial block, I'd be happy to answer them. Complaining about others' edits is not useful in this context. Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare Yes, i was also giving counter arguments with sources without broking wikipedia policies, may be somewhere i was wrong, but i was doing my job to put facts, i found that user was continuously discarding the reference from legacy section also without caring wikipedia policies (by questioning the authority of author's WP: SCHOLARSHIP) , i was only putting views with sources as well (i am not complaining), i am still thinking where i was wron Asr99.0979 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have kept the recently issued partial block (from editing Prithviraj Chauhan and its talkpage) very narrow in the hope that you will be able to contribute more constructively in areas where you have less emotional involvement. But you should be aware that if the problems reoccur at other venues, a wider topic-ban or block is likely. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 10:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Kashdara

Hello, Asr99.0979. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Kashdara, 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) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bikawat

Hello, Asr99.0979. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bikawat, 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) 12:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]