Malik-Al-Hind

Welcome!

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Malik-Al-Hind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Recent edits

Need to talk about your recent edits. What is the point of changing “Delhi sultanate victory” to “Delhi” victory? You already admitted that it doesn’t benefit the articles. If that’s the case, then there is no reason to be making this change. The purpose of an edit is to improve an article which this doesn’t do.

There’s no point in shortening it to “Delhi victory”. You’ve given zero reasons for this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why the full part of the message isn’t showing up in the edit summary, so I’ll show it here.

“Parts of my message didn’t get fully sent so I decided to rewrite my edit summary because this is important.

Normally I would wait until the discussion in the talk page clears to avoid the 4th revert rule, but this seems to be a form of vandalism. Reverting vandalism is an exception to the edit warring rule. Quote from the vandalism page.

“Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense.” There is no legitimate reason for removing “sultanate” from victory section in the infobox. It’s not even cluttered so shortening it doesn’t make the page look better.

If for whatever reason I made a mistake and this is not a form of vandalism, then anyone can feel free to let me know and I’ll revert my own edit. My concerns would still stand though. If you disagree Malik, then please respond to me on your talk page to find a resolution and avoid any edit warring.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

It’s for these reasons that I added the term “sultanate” back. Again, if you disagree, you’re free to use the talk page. Avoids edit warring that way. But please provide legitimate reasons for your changes so your position can be considered. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Shortening it to "Delhi victory" makes it look clean and less clumsy, Makes it simpler as well. If I give you my opinion, then for me this discussion isn't even worthy of a discussion and is unnecessary because whether you write "delhi victory"' or "Delhi sultanate victory" it is literally still the same. Delhi sultanate itself means "Sultanate/Empire of delhi".

Again, By the 3 revert rule, You can't really revert anyone's edit. Unless someone is commiting serious vandalism. I hope you know what that means. What you think of vandalism can be subjective, Which could be discussed in the talk page. Reverting it for the 4th time wasn't really a good move. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

“Shortening it to "Delhi victory" makes it look clean and less clumsy, Makes it simpler”

How? The info box is not even cluttered. Shortening it by one word doesn’t benefit anything. And if you really didn’t care about this discussion and thought that “Delhi” is the same as “Delhi sultanate”, then you wouldn’t be reverting back these changes.

“Again, By the 3 revert rule, You can't really revert anyone's edit. Unless someone is commiting serious vandalism. I hope you know what that means. What you think of vandalism can be subjective, Which could be discussed in the talk page.”

What’s the difference between “serious vandalism” and “vandalism”? Vandalism is always grounds for removal per Wikipedia:Vandalism. And I’ve showed you how you vandalized the article through those page quotes so it’s not exactly subjective. And I’ve already stated that I’m willing to revert myself back if it’s not actually vandalism but we would still have to dish this out on the talk page.

Just to let you know, you’ve actually already broke the 4th revert rule on the article. I reverted several times too but the difference is you weren’t reverting vandalism, so you’re the one who’s actually edit warring.

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1228072987”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1237750664”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1237766675”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1237946675” Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And yes, “manual revert” is considered a “revert” Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1228072987”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=next&oldid=1231721269&diffonly=1”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=next&oldid=1237755756&diffonly=1”

“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=next&oldid=1237842415&diffonly=1”

I made a mistake with adding the wrong links and weirdly I can’t edit the right ones back in so I had to make a new comment which oddly works. Oh well pitfalls of editing on a mobile phone I guess. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay for some reason the first link leads to one of my other edit summaries. I have to make a new comment once again to fix that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_invasion_of_India_(1297%E2%80%931298)&diff=prev&oldid=1228072987 Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruption

Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, could look into the disruption going at List of emperors of the Mughal Empire and add back "Emperor of Hindustan", the formal title, with the new sources I mentioned at Talk:List of emperors of the Mughal Empire#September 2024. PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I have reverted their edit, told them to stop their disruptive edits and not indulge in edit war, Hopefully they will use the talk page now and seek consensus. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind, the page is being disrupted again. This time it's the second para. Even though it mentions all three cultural identities that is the original Persianate and Turkic, as well as the later Indian, the latter is still being removed. I've restored it but could you look over the page for the time being? PadFoot (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I will try to, I am on vacations right now but I will revert their edit. I will ask them to discuss this in the talk page again. Thank you.

But it's quite ridiculous that they are still having the problem with the word "Indian" when we have literally mentioned all other aspects such as them being persianate and turkic. And it isn't even like as if it's not backed up by sources, Numerous WP:RS sources and historians expertise in Mughal history call the dynasty "Indian" despite being turkic and persianate. Mughals being an Indian branch of persianiate turkic Timurid dynasty fits perfectly. Although I may act a bit rough here. But it looks like they are pov pushing at this point. As if Mughals were never indianized or became indian and their sole purpose here is to make it look like they were completely foreign and were never indianized. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you. Thanks for looking into this. PadFoot (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Padfoot and Malik, you do realize this is WP:CANVASSING right? And I literally just told padfoot that WP:ONUS is on him because if another user disputes the content he adds, then the responsibility for achieving consensus is on him. Which means this issue cannot simply be solved with reverting. Padfoot needs to use the talk page, because he has to gain consensus first before doing anything. This also means Padfoot and Malik shouldn’t be reverting anything until consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. Padfoot should already understand this considering it’s been explained to him several times in the past. “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”. [1]Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored, I notified Malik al-Hind of the disruption being done by you. Also there's a 2-1 consensus thus. PadFoot (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How many times have I told you that consensus is not voting? And this discussion literally just began. You clearly did not gain consensus for using the term “Indian” or “indianized” on the Mughal dynasty talk page. So you would still need to do so. Many people have already voiced their concerns about the use of those terms so it’s not a “2-1 consensus” as you claim.

You informed him? You’re actually canvassing with him. You literally went to his talk page to get him to revert things for you. And it didn’t start with me.

Wikipedia:Consensus

“ Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.”

it’s based on the arguments actually made. You’re just trying to shove your POV onto other articles after you couldn’t gain consensus on the Mughal dynasty page. How many times is WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS going to be repeated to you? @Sutyarashi recently pointed out the same thing to you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t see that you reverted it back until now. I suppose we can ignore my previous comment. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see where is the problem in using the term "Indian" when their "turkic" and "persianate" aspect is already covered. The people who were against using the term "Indian" were saying the same that it doesn't cover everything and using Indian alone isnt good because it ignores their other aspects, But now, it's covering literally everything. "Indian branch of persianiate turkic dynasty" fits perfectly. But again, if you have problems with it, you can consider using the talk page. I may won't reply since I am on vacations and really inactive these days. Thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read the RFC again. Many other users such as RegentPark and Airshipjungleman brought up separate concerns.

The ONUS is not on me to achieve consensus. Anyway, this doesn’t really matter anymore. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I remember a guy selectively pinging three other editors (as they had voted oppose on a previous RfC) when the discussion initially on Mughal dynasty had initially started. (Btw, 2-1 consensus is considered enough per WP:CONSENSUS). Also, the discussion on Mughal dynasty page was concerning a different article and regarding the opening sentence of the lead. Issues raised by RegentsPark was regarding the region and not culture, and AirshipJungleman simply said that the ethnicity was convered in detail in the second paragraph of the lead, and not necessary in the first paragraph. (Notice that the change on Mughal emperor is also in the second paragraph, and not the first paragraph.) I myself had pinged AirshipJungleman as he is a very experienced editor, and his argument convinced me that that the proposed first paragraph of the lead was unnecessary. PadFoot (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop saying that this is a 2-1 consensus. There were many editors who voiced their opinion on the Mughal dynasty page discussing their disapproval for the use of the term “Indian” or “indianized”. Even Flemmish who agreed with option 1, was against use of the word “Indian” and preferred “indianized”.

I’ve showed you the rules for this many times so you should understand that CONSENSUS IS NOT VOTING! It’s based on the validity of the arguments actually made.

“ In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.”

Quoting the policy is getting a little repetitive.

“RegentsPark was regarding the region and not culture”

Im not sure what you mean by that. He reverted you so he clearly opposed your addition. Read this.

“ Also, if you do need to associate it with the subcontinent, the preference should be for South Asian rather than Indian. Because the modern entity India is different from the historical one, we need to be clear what entity we are referring to”

This was his comment. We were talking about whether we should add the term “Indian” in the article or not. “Region not culture”? That doesn’t really make any sense. He didn’t just say we shouldn’t use the term “Indian subcontinent”. He specially used the term “Indian” which is indeed a culture. Both culture and regional identity both go hand and hand here.

Personally I also agree with him. I mean you were involved in another discussion with Joshua Jonathan about the use of South Asia vs Indian subcontinent and it seems that there was a consensus to use South Asia instead.

As for Airship, you should probably ask him separately if Indian or indianized is an okay term used to describe the Mughals. Regardless he wasn’t the only one who commented there.

“ Well, I remember a guy selectively pinging three other editors (as they had voted oppose on a previous RfC) when the discussion initially on Mughal dynasty had initially started”

I pinged 3 people on the talk page who had previous experience dealing with situations like this(which you’ve done too, but I didn’t make a fuss because I had no issue with that) I didn’t go on another persons talk page just to get them to revert and edit war with me against other users which you did prior to when I joined this discussion. That’s clearly canvassing.

Anyway this discussion is kind of pointless if the edit is gone anyway. At this point we should just move on from this. But if there’s any concerns you have, feel free to let me know. Hope my comment didn’t come off as too harsh or aggressive. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chandragupta Maurya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Priyadarshi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mughal-Safavid conflict (1542-1605) (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OhHaiMark was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mughal-Safavid conflict (1542-1605) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

OhHaiMark (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Malik-Al-Hind! Having an article draft 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! OhHaiMark (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Hello @Malik-Al-Hind, I was wondering if there are any English language WP:HISTRS sources for the exact title "Shahenshah-e-Hind" being used by the Mughal emperors. If there aren't any English language sources, we shouldn't be listing it. (Note that I am not saying that the title was or wasn't used, I am only saying here that it should only be used in the English Wikipedia if it is used by English language sources. For example, the title "Šāhanšāh-i Īrān" is reliably sourced on Abbas the Great). PadFoot (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I did cite a source on Akbar's page. I will take a look over it once I am free and cite it again. I am barely active these days because of exams.

Thank you for your concerns though. Just wait i will check and add the sources soon. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source you had added was a fictional novel, which doesn't qualify as WP:HISTRS. We would need reliable sources or else we would need to remove it unfortunately. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)