User talk:Kami2018

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text to Gilgit Scouts from another page. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim ibn Adham

Greetings. It's very much recommended that significant edits to Wikipedia be explained when performed. You edit to Ibrahim ibn Adham didn't conform. My reversion explains things nicely. Your editing isn't headed in the right direction, given the most recent postings above. If you want to be a constructive editor, please do read the guidelines, as above. Tapered (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khalji dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bilal Ashraf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjabi

Shaan Shahid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjabi

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of categories

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sher Shah Suri, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but i think you added both the categories by mistake. Now you see both parent and child category in that same article. Kami2018 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I got confused by all the back and forth on that article. I've reverted myself. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Punjabi tribes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dilazak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pashtun

Yusufzai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pashtun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Katoch, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangash

Do you have a source for this edit of yours?

"...Kurram Valley of present Pakistan, where they were still living as of the Ghaznavids period (975 to 1187)."

The source states:

"The ethnogenesis of the Bangaṧ, therefore, seems both to be religious and to be located in the Gardīz region during the Ghaznavid period. Later on the Bangaṧ, who were then expelled from their mountain den by the Ḡelzī during Tīmūr’s invasions, crossed the Paywār pass and progressively moved into the upper Korram basin on the eastern slopes of the Solaymān mountains."

Therefore, the Bangas were not in the Korram basin until after Timur's invasion. Do you have a source stating otherwise? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AND, why did you remove referenced information along with the reference from this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kansas Bear, as you know i normally dont revert edits if they are properly sourced but the IP user keeps on editing articles without any references. He has only mentioned the ones which i might have made a mistake on but if you look at the following he keeps on adding Afghanistan in every article:

Amir Kror Suri - For this he keeps on adding that he established Ghorid Empire but ghurid dynasty was established by another Amir Suri

Durrani - Keeps on removing Pakistan when Pakistan has the 70 percent Pashtun Population.

Removing referenced information like "The cult of this god was primarily Hindu, though parallels have also been noted with pre-Buddhist religious and monarchy practices in Tibet and had Zoroastrian influence in its ritual" from Zunbils

Kambojas - This IP user has been removing referenced information with multiple IP's. Now in this case he keeps on adding Afghanistan to the articles without any sources.

Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) - They were originally said to have resided in Afghanistan - Now the source does not mention this at all but he has added it.

Turi (Pashtun tribe)] - He keeps on adding Khogyani without any reference when under Pashtun tribes it is Karlani.

He has operated under multiple IP's 101.50.95.62 and 58.65.159.42

Please advise further Kami2018 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you anything about an IP nor did I ask about Amir Kror Suri, Amir Suri, Kambojas, Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar), or Turi (Pashtun tribe). You should re-read my original post.

If there are behavioral issues with the IP, I would suggest Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	This was a great revert. I am not very knowledgeable about that area yet, but if you are, you could also section this material off into a 'Name' or 'Etymology' section (like on the Taipei page). Thanks for your work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

This is the last warning that needs to be given prior to filing yet another report on you. You have been reverting properly sourced information since you joined Wikipedia and it is clear from the numerous complaints (including those touching you nationalistic views) from other editors, that you keep constantly deleting from your talk page. Regarding the article on Afshar people, that you have foolishly reverted as always, I wrote specifically for you - see: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/azb. at the end of my edit in the history section. You have been warned once again!!! --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 03:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: I personally request that you treat this user with greater respect. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally request that you find your way to his "Talk Page" and click the "History" section. See deleted posts. Also, you may wish to visit Kansas Bear's talk page and find post #19 --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: I recommend more compassion and tolerance for other editors. This is a for-fun volunteer website. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things that cannot be joked about. --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018 and Visioncurve: Kami2018, let me know if you ever need help adding references to Wikipedia pages. Visioncurve, in light of the new references I added to the Zhetysu page, I think you ought to reconsider your attitude toward Kami2018. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many removals of portions of page content

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Qais Abdur Rashid. Khan Abdul Ghani Khan, ‎Mausoleum of Kara Koyunlu emirs, Aijaz Aslam, Iqra Aziz, Fatima Jinnah, ‎Prithviraj Kapoor‎. --Esperanto97 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can mention me anywhere you want as the pages you mentioned were having information that was not in the reference or there was no reference at all. Either they were having incomplete or wrong wording or the sources didn't contain that respective information. Dont try to dictate me and rather look at the edits and then mention me. Kami2018 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Esperanto97. Before bringing forward the serious warning that an editor could be blocked, you owe it to yourself (and the rest of us) to build a strong enough case for such a warning.

In the article about Khan Abdul Ghani Khan Kami2018 simply removed the unsourced allegation about the subject being of Afghani origin and did so time and again, and rightly so.
Same thing on the page about Qais Abdur Rashid: yet another unsupported claim about being Afghan removed. A further attempt made by an IP to re-insert the unsupported claim was removed by a bot as vandalism.
Same thing in Mausoleum of Kara Koyunlu emirs where an unsupported claim about this mausoleum in Armenia being "Turkmen" was removed.

And so on. You are essentially accusing Kami2018 of acting with the vigilance and promptness we appreciate in Wikipedia editors. Please refrain from similar, obviously hasty accusations, and assume good faith in others's work. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhammad Iqbal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions

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.

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.

--regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you discuss why you are removing sourced information from an article on the article's talk page before doing so.--regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit, Kami2018? Which "reference" were you speaking of, and what did it say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

khalji

Hi, i saw you editing the khalji dynasty page. Can you remove the last sentences "wrongly". Because it contradicts the whole origin section of article, ( keeping in mind the sources etc). And it will also be the first hand research which is against wiki rules. The article dictates that what or whom they were considered. I have also provided may sources in talk section of khalji dynasty (though a few months ago) Thank you, i hope positive changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:19C6:8113:6A83:A03 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Utmankhel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pashtun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayi (tribe)

Why did you revert my changes in this article? They all are relevant, as medieval sources mention Oghuz and Turkmen in parallel and as the same people.

Bayram A.

Well first of all you have added sayings without any reference such as "The anicent Turkmen proverb says: "Kayi and Bayat tribes shall lead the people" (Turkmen: "Il başy - gaýy-baýat")" . Although it might be true but has no reference and to add further its for Turkoman (ethnonym). The reason behind creation of that article Turkoman (ethnonym) was to clear the confusion between Turkoman and Turkmen. Turkmen is part of Turkoman but Turkoman is synonymous to Oghuz turks which i am sure you know includes Turkish, Turkmen and Azeris. Ottomans are Ottoman turks which are Turkish speaking people and you have changed information without discussion and without references. Secondly you changed Turkish to turkic but you turned turk to turkmen to all the places without any reference. Clearly a bias towards turkmen ethnicity. Kami2018 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, there is no difference between "Turkmen" and "Turkoman", these are different pronounciations of the same ethnonym in different languages. The Persians would say "Torkaman" to the Turkmens of Iran and Turkmenistan, e.g. Bandar Torkaman), this word is the same as "Turkoman". Let me give you other examples from reliable sources where the word "Turkoman" means the same as "Turkmen":

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "Turkoman". Turkoman: a member of a Turkic-speaking, traditionally nomadic people living chiefly in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Iran - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Turkoman

- Arminius Vambery, "The Turcomans Between the Caspian and Merv", The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 9. (1880), p.338 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/i330925) - The article taks about Turkmenistan's Turkmens which are called Turcomans.

- The book "The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia" by Peter Hopkirk talks about Turkmens of Turkmenistan in the chapter "The Last Stand of the Turсomans" - (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/138299.The_Great_Game ). In this book, Turkmenistan's Turkmens are called "Turcomans".

As you can see, all reliable sources mention the words "Turkmen" and "Turkoman" as synonyms and these two words mean the same, so the ethnonym "Turkmen" is not "part of Turkoman". There are multiple examples of the same, let me know if you want more of them.

2. You also reverted the name of the Kayi tribe in Turkmen, why? Kayi clan still exists among Turkmenistan's and Iranian Turkmens and there is every legitimate reason to mention its name in the Turkmen language. Please cancel your revert for this.

3. You reverted my translation of Shajare-i Tarakime into English (Genealogy of Turkmens), but this is how its translates into English. This work was written by the Khan of Khiva on the request of Turkmen mullahs of Turkmenistan and the English translation should be there as it is. The same applies to the word Turkmen after "mentions Kayı among 24 Oghuz Turkmen tribes". This work is about Turkmens who called themselves Oghuz in the past and the word "Turkmen" should absoultely be there. You surely are biased against Turkmens even when the reliable sources mention Turkmens directly.

4. As for the phrase "The famous Oghuz Turkic folk narrator soothsayer and bard Gorkut-ata (Dede Korkut)", the word "Turkic" is an English word meaning all Turkic-speaking people, however the word "Turkish" in the English language means Turks of Turkey and Turkish minorities of some other adjacent countries. This is an English language Wikipedia and should follow the rules of the English-speaking world. Dede Korkut is part of the folk heritage of all Central Asian Turkic peoples, Azeri Turks and Turkish Turks, so in this case word "Turkic" is relevant. Please revert back this change.

Bayram A.

Brother for your information there is an article Turkoman (ethnonym) which clearly explains the difference between Turkmens of Turkmenistan and Turkomans/Oghuz turks. Turkoman includes Turkish, Turkmen, Azeri Turks etc.

First of all turkmen Language had nothing to do with Kayi as they spoke Old Anatolian turkish which is an ancestor of turkish language and not turkmen language. That has been changed.
The Quote is also fine as its referenced but is redirected to Turkoman which includes all three turkmen, turkish and Azeri.
Addition of Oghuz turkmen is changed back to Oghuz turks which is Turkoman and includes all three. There is an article on wikipedia with the name Oghuz turks and not Oghuz turkmen which clearly explains its due to confusion.
I have no bias towards the usage of Turkoman but yes usage of turkmen in turkish articles is wrong. It suggests Kayi were turkmen rather they were turkoman which gave rise to ottoman turks which are turkish people.

As Turkmen is a branch of Turkoman then instead of redirecting to the turkmen pages which clearly creates confusion.

Kami2018 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Once again, the Kayi tribe lived in Central Asia and Turkmenistan long before it came to Anatolia. The Kayi tribe is no longer existent in Turkey, but it exists in Turkmenistan and speak the TURKMEN language. I have showed you twice and given you the sources for that, but you INTENTIONALLY refuse to accept the RELIABLE SOURCES. You must be objective in writing an article in Wikipedia and include the name of the tribe in Turkmen languages, because the Kayi tribe is now a Turkmen tribe. If this article is about the Anatolian portion of the Kayi tribe, then it should be named Anatolian Kayi tribe. - Once again, this is an English language Wikipdeia. In English, the word "Turkish" is relevant to the Turks of Turkey and Turkish minorities in countries adjacent to it. Dede Korkut is an epic of countries, such as Turkmenistan, Azerbajan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkey which are collectively called in the English language as Turkic. Here is an execrpt from it: The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups of Central, East, North and West Asia as well as parts of Europe and North Africa, who speak Turkic languages. This is not your personal web-page where you can write whatever you want, you must follow the Wikipedia rules of objectivity change "Turkish" to "Turkic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayram A (talk • contribs) 05:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all can you prove to me that Turkoman is Turkmen of Turkmenistan only ?
Do you mean to say that only Turkmens is synonymous to Oghuz turks ? What about turks of turkey and Azeris ?
According to sources - Oghuz turks = Turkoman = (Turkish and Azeris and Turkmens of Turkmenistan) etc.
Do you know Syrian Turkmens and Iraqi Turkmens are turkish ethnically and are not Turkmen ethnicity of Turkmenistan.
Oghuz Turks moved from Central Asia and Siberia to Turkmenistan, Iran and Turkey etc. Turkmen was land of Iranian people before Oghuz turks and other turkic people displaced them. Please read the History of Turkmenistan.
Kayi has many villages named after them in Turkey. Please refer to the article here [[1]] to see their present distribution in turkey.
Ottoman Turks are descendants of Kayi tribe which moved from Central asia and spoke ottoman turkish which is ancestor to Modern Turkish. Not turkmen language. Language shift Old Anatolian Turkish - Ottoman turkish - Modern Turkish

Please refer to the article below [[2]] Kami2018 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning against Vandalism

Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) First warning regarding vandalism on the Khalji Dynasty and Hindkowan article. Further attempts at vandalizing the mentioned pages will result in escalation of the matter.

W28394 (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khalji dynasty or Hindkowan, you may be blocked from editing.

W28394 (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khalji dynasty, Hindkowan, and Jalal-ud-din Khalji you may be blocked from editing. Clearly you have not read (or replied) to what defines ethnicity as mentioned here [[3]].

W28394 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:W28394 - disruptive editing and Edit wars

Salaam User:Kami2018 and thank you for your message on my talk page. I am also concerned about User:W28394's editing and it seems that despite a firm consensus against his edits on the talk page, he is continuing to edit war with other users. If User:W28394 breaks WP:3RR (it appears that he has already been warned; Exhibit A & Exhibit B), he can be reported at WP:AN3. I myself may file the report if he continues to revert at Hindkowans unless someone else does this before I get the chance to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i agree with you but i think we need to report him as he has already done the same with two other pages Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Khalji dynasty. he has removed referenced information and he is doing the same with Hindkowans. I think he will not learn because he has reverted the pages multiple times. Kami2018 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. If he continues to edit war without gaining consensus, you can list the diffs in a report at WP:AN3 for all the articles he has been edit warring at. Ensure that you follow the instructions there for how a report should be formatted. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So he has reverted all three articles again. Hindkowans, Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Khalji dynasty. He doesn't seem to learn. Let me know how you want to proceed ? Kami2018 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kami2018, thank you for your reply. I suggested that User:W28394 self-revert as his edits lack consensus. I noticed that you opened a thread at WP:ANI so at this time, I think we shall wait for the input of the Wikipedia community. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversions in Pakistan article nominated for deletion

Hy a newly created article related to Pakistan are under discussion at AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan#Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan I'm inviting you please comment and share you're view's Thanks! Ytpks896 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Dear Kami2018, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hindkowan consensus

Dear User:Kami2018, thank you for your kind message on my talk page. I appreciate you letting me know that you reinstated the referenced information in the article. As you have indicated on my talk page that you "restored the version as supported by the talk page", I think it would be helpful if you commented there as well, to let others know how you feel, as you have been a participant there since the beginning of the discussion. Thanks! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Khalji dynasty, Hindkowan, and Jalal-ud-din Khaljidid not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Kindly stop spamming my talkpage with copy paste warnings that you seem to have little to no knowledge on. If you want to discuss edits and sources, head on to the talk page of the articles. All of edit related queries and discussions regarding sources and history has already been answered on the talk pages of the articles aforementioned. You have not reached a consensus on Khalji Dynasty and Jalal-ud-din Khalji edits. Various editors have disputed your edits numerous times. [[4]] [[5]] . A consensus on Hindkowan has already been reached. Till then, I can only advice you to stop your POV pushing and spamming. Also, I was never blocked. I got busy with work life but rest assure I will keep a check in a more timely manner now. Thanks

W28394 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

== You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khalji Dynasty; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. ==

--Xerxes931 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2020 (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. Thank you. Xerxes931 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Khalji dynasty, Hindkowans, and Jalal-ud-din Khalji) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humayun Saeed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last chance you will get about this, if you continue to edit war and push your point of view you will be either blocked indefinitely or topic banned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i think i reported the other user because of disruptive editing by him here [[6]]. I am not sure why did i get blocked, when i also added a reference to the information that i added. I asked him to discuss on the talk page. I would appreciate if you could help me understand this block Kami2018 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I blocked you from editing specific pages to encourage you to start discussions on the talk pages of the articles you wanted changed. You didn't do that, instead you've started a new edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc Thanks, this was necessary, simply a disruptive user disturbing other good faith editors with his agendas. The diff which the blocked person posted[[7]] shows him removing sourced information about an historic person being Afghan(which he always does) and he was trying to replace it by another source[[8]] to remove the term Afghan there, funny enough the source he was using as a basis for his edit warring was literally stating the person to be Afghan as well: "Raverty writes that Hameed was the cynical poet of the Afghans" . This proves that he isnt even looking into the sources which he uses for his edit wars. Again thanks for your intervention --Xerxes931 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit warring and disruptive editing across a number of articles.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kami2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to bring this to your attention that although you have banned me indefinitely but I would appreciate if you could go through the revert below for which i have been banned and just spend few minutes through the references, you will notice I was only writing the information which was part of sources mentioned and if there is no source, then I have just requested other users to please provide references to the edits. Is it justified that I get a indefinite block for merely writing what is part of the references. [9] Kami2018 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not indicate that if unblocked you would revert less than you have been doing. I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. To feel comfortable in unblocking you, I would need a commitment to change your editing patterns, and spend more time establishing consensus on the talk page. In this context, I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kami2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As Suggested by PhilKnight, I will make strong efforts in changing my edit patterns and will spend more time on the talk page by communicating with other users and building consensus. I surely will follow the rules suggested in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and will improve my editing habits. I would appreciate if the block can be removed this time only. Thankyou for the comments and guidance

Accept reason:

I'm going to assume good faith and see what happens. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kami2018 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. One open unblock request at a time, please. I have removed your unnecessary duplicate request. --Yamla (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight or any other admin, just wanted to see if you could update me in relation to my request. Thankyou for your assistance. Kami2018 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Khan

Hello @Kami2018. I am @Archer1234. I noticed this recent edit to Aamir Khan where some content was removed that appeared to be validly sourced, yet an explanation for the removal was not provided. What is the reason for its removal? Thanks. — Archer (t·c) 18:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]