User talk:Alivardi

Hi Alivardi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

hi Alivardi I don't know your identity can you read the reference which I put in http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi20.htm in this Link completely carefully read then go to Royal history museum. London Rayalark dictionary gallery. And come to Istanbul Topkapi museum. And read books Tawarikh-e-ruhala Rampur library & "First ceneson of Rampur state 1911" & . "Sadhra-e-Mughaliya". And first thing is that you are edit after edited already. Do you know actual history of last time period of Mughal dynasty what happened. Where Khizer sultan were captured & where was murdered. İf you know that indroduce me your self otherwise I will submit a petition against you a Cort.

Pratapgarh State (Northeast India), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ibrahim Danishmand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hushang Mirza, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen your created articles like Pratapgarh state and they are very impressive. I would appreciate if you could make an article on Kharagpur/Kharakpur chieftaincy of Munger, Bihar. It was a Muslim Rajput dynasty that had a major impact on the history of Bihar. Some reading here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44155867

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44142804

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44142975

I don't have an account so I can't create myself and since you've done a lot for Muslim South Asian history I was wondering if you could take a look? If you make an account of JSTOR you get 6 free article viewings. Thanks.2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:5A82 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just hang on with your reverts of {{Ahnentafel}} stuff, please. You were bold in adding them, I reverted on some articles and I've opened a discussion at one where you then reverted me. Let's try to get some further input. It will probably need to go to a thread at WT:INB but just perhaps there will be enough to persuade either you or me at the thread I have opened at Talk:Bhagwant Das. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi! You created a thread called Advice on settling a dispute at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions and for the re-adjustment of my edits. 79.75.56.255 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool buddy, happy to help. Alivardi (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Please this user **Kashmiri** has removed calligraphy from Many of imams of Ahl Bayat and From Pages of Awliyah e.g Abdul Qadir Jeelani and many more.

He is amended to edit or remove islamic heritage. pls rollback the changes

SPQR10 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alivardi,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Theodore Kantakouzenos should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Kantakouzenos .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Alright buddy, thanks for letting me know. Alivardi (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a reference in the article Theodore Kantakouzenos that I think has the wrong date. The book is "The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe" by Dimitri Obolensky, and the citation says it was published in 1969. From what I can find, the book was originally published in 1982, with a republish in 1996, which makes me think the 9 and the 6 might've just been flipped by accident. If this is the case, I can go ahead and fix it. If not, I'll take you at your word; you seem incredibly knowledgeable about this.

Another date that seems to be of issue is Nicol's entry "Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World" in the Variorum Collected Studies, as it seems this was first published in 1972, and that the first title in the series was published in 1970, yet it's listed as 1968 in the citation.

Also, I know it's probably stressful seeing your article get nominated for deletion, but I think it was nominated wrongfully, and I don't think there's a chance such a well-sourced article will be removed. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. Regarding the dates, honestly I've been getting those ones from Google Books, which can be prone to mistakes. So if you do spot any, of course feel free to correct them. Alivardi (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: Thank you. I also added some information to them, including a link to The Cambridge Medieval History on the Internet Archive. I made the assumption, by the way, that "A Byzantine emperor in England: Manuel II's visit to London in 1400–1401" by Donald Nicol was a chapter in Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World and not part of the title, but I can revert it if this was incorrect. Again, your sourcing in the article is excellent, especially for how new it is. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: It was my understanding that rather than a chapter, it was actually a study which was published alongside a collection of others (I only had access to that one particular section). Though I think what you did works in that scenario as well. Anyways, I really do appreciate your additions to the citations, so thank you. Alivardi (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciate it; it often goes unnoticed. With your permission, something you may want to consider using for the citations that say "[Person] explains/notes/argues xyz" followed by a reference to a source is a template called an explanatory footnote, or 'Efn'. The explanations go in their own smaller section just above 'References', usually called 'Notes' or 'Footnotes'. The goal is both to make the references more flexible (e.g., say you want to cite a work twice, but the explanation for the first instance makes no sense for the second) and to make them more readable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy, I'll remember that Alivardi (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there is a section on the talk page of Muhsin ibn Ali that you have been mentioned in. The topic is Talk:Muhsin ibn Ali#Disruptive edits. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Succession to Muhammad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Succession to Muhammad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Succession to Muhammad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Bangladesh Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to Bangladesh-related articles UserNumber (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alivardi. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi Alivardi! You created a thread called Hijacking a redirect page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alivardi, Thanks for your revolutionary editing. I am sorry that you did not find my exposition titled the Legend of Husayn or Husaynian Legend worthy of being calculated as a wiki contribution. In my part, although it was condensed, there were some key notions incorporated into the text worthy of being developed at least by other editors. Religious discourses like any other hermeneutic explanation have different layers of meaning, in this case not confined to an emotional survey of the epic.

Anonyeader (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi, I am working on the History of Sylhet and need some help on what to include and not to include. For example, your page on Pratapgarh Kingdom, is an important part of the Sylhet's history but I can't add every bit of information about it to the History of Sylhet page as it will be too long. I require some assistance with this and organising my article in general. Many thanks.

​ Hi UserNumber. I've noticed your work on that page and I really appreciate the amount of effort you've put in. However, I'm not sure I can be much help regarding the general history of Sylhet. The articles I have written relating to Sylhet have mainly been about topics of which I had some prior knowledge; my understanding of the overall history of the region is somewhat lacking. I can do general edits and give suggestions for what you have written so far, but I am not really able to provide anything needing specialist knowledge. Is that okay?

In regards to the history of Pratapgarh, I cannot see any issues with what you have written already. Making some short mention of the eventual fate of the kingdom may be beneficial, but I don't believe anything beyond that is really necessary. Maybe add something like this at the end of the main paragraph: "the kingdom later collapsed following an invasion by Kachar in the early 18th century".
Alivardi (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would also like to upload some images for some articles that I have created. I have not uploaded images on this website before so could you please do the favour of uploading these for me: Syed Abdul Majid (http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=File:MajidSyedAbdul.jpg) and I'tisam-ud-Din (https://assetsds.cdnedge.bluemix.net/sites/default/files/styles/very_big_2/public/news/images/01_0.png?itok=p7jIYhkC and https://pictures.abebooks.com/INLIBRIS/16402381929_3.jpg)

Many thanks once again UserNumber (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ I've uploaded the first two pictures.[1][2] I haven't done the third because I think it would be best to include the name of the book which it came from, which I don't have access to. Here[3] is the link to upload an image on to Wikimedia Commons (which is where Wikipedia images are sourced from) if you wanted to upload the last one yourself. You should be able to just log in with your Wikipedia account, after which there is a 2 minute process to include the necessary info about the picture before uploading it.
Alivardi (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May Allah reward you my dear brother, I really appreciate it UserNumber (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble understanding Upload Wizard. How did you upload those two pictures if they weren't yours? How did you know what the copyright claim for images are? Many thanksUserNumber (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ I tend to click the "First published before 1924 and author deceased more than 70 years ago" option. The best thing to do is find the original source for the image to confirm this.

E.g. if you're talking about the second I'tisam-ud-Din image which I hadn't uploaded before, just check that the book it was from had been published before 1924 and that the artist (if one is attributed) has been dead for more that 70 years.
Alivardi (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'As consistent with many punjabis of that time, he was a cultural Hindu and followed the Sikh path.' - is what I wrote on that page as its consistent with the writings on McCleod & Co. A Cultural Hindu, simply put, is somebody who just partakes in the cultural side of 'Hinduism', for example, partaking in certain Poojas or being homage to certain Vedic deities. However, you removed it stating that it was not sourced properly, could you rectify this please?

​My objection was you stating Ranjit Singh's religion to be Hinduism in the infobox, despite "Cultural Hindu" not implying religious adherence to the faith. However, I did not intend to remove the sentence you added to the lead, and for this I apologise. I have restored the sentence, but in the main article rather than where you had originally placed it. This is because content in the lead must reflect the main points of the article and cannot introduce new information (see MOS:LEAD). Thanks
Alivardi (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response, I attempted to change the 'religious' box to 'identity', hence I added the word 'Hindu' in (I'll leave the debate regarding 'religion' being the appropriate way to describe a Dharmic 'mode of being' for another page!) Thank you for rectifying my mistake though. I'll try an add in a separate box which goes into identity/'world-view'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by English Singh (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for submitting Chakrapani Datta to Wikipedia Asian Month. Unfortunately, the article's acceptance is put on hold for now as it appears that some sentences were copied from Banglapedia without attribution. Please rephrase the parts in question so that the article can be accepted. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ While I appreciate you voicing your concerns, I have to disagree. All relevant content is properly attributed to the Banglapedia article you mentioned. However, if your primary worry is that the wording of the article is too similar to that of the source material, I will of course try to correct that. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, once the paragraph in question is revised, the article will be accepted. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ I think I've managed to address your concerns. Thank you again for raising them to me. Feel free to let me know if there are any other issues.
Alivardi (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said that proper grammar would be nice. Then you should remove "one of the most powerful Iranian rulers in the history of the nation" into "one of the most powerful rulers in the Iranian history" if "one of the most powerful Iranian rulers in the Iranian history" doesn't please you. What is "history of the nation", this is not Encyclopedia Iranica. See WP:NPOV. Beshogur (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ Feel free to change it. Just be careful with your grammar.
Alivardi (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ And FYI, it should be "one of the most powerful rulers in Iranian history", not "one of the most powerful rulers in the Iranian history".
Alivardi (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Thanks. Glad you agree. Beshogur (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Just a little FYI: You do realize that the vast majority of articles in Iranica are written by well-known non-Iranian scholars (Bosworth, etc), right? Even if that wasn't the case, Iranica is still clearly a reliable and neutral source. You refer to it as it was the opposite [5] [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: I have no problem with Iranica. Iranica doesn't even say the word "of the nation". I don't understand the problem with mentioning it directly as Iranian history? "of the nation" is a wording like Wikipedia belongs only to Iranians. Beshogur (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: HistoryofIran said that last comment, not me.
Alivardi (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I never said anything regarding the wording once. Let's just leave this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Honestly, I'd argue your new wording was better. You didn't need to revert it. I'll leave it up to you how you want it anyway.
Alivardi (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

Rocky 734 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Congratulations!

It's WAM's honor to have you all participated in Wikipedia Asian Month 2019, the fifth edition of WAM. Your achievements were fabulous, and all the articles you created make the world can know more about Asia in different languages! Here we, the WAM International team, would like to say thank you for your contribution also cheer for you that you are eligible for the postcard of Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. Please kindly fill the form, let the postcard can send to you asap!

Cheers!

Thank you and best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Kindly remind you that we only collect the information for WAM postcard 31/01/2019 UTC 23:59. If you haven't filled the google form, please fill it asap. If you already completed the form, please stay tun, wait for the postcard and tracking emails.

Cheers!

Thank you and best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.01

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got yur message on my talk page. All I did was add the "exact comments" that the reference is being is pointed to. This is what the comments were "500 killed or wounded[4] 100-200 surrendered Another 300–400 killed or wounded while escaping over steep rocks[5]

and I corrected the wording per the reference its pointing to.

500 Gallant Rajputs killed or wounded[4] Few Surrendered Several hundreds chose the desperate alternative of venturing over the rocks. Many died in this attempt.[5]

These are the exact wording in the reference. What is the need of assumption even after what it says in the reference?

The 1000-1400 is also pointing to same reference whereas there is no such information in the reference. Its pretty much a lie covered up using reference that it doesn't even relate to. Not arguing with you but just making my point. So do you think my change was still incorrect? WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 15:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ My concern is the use of words such as "gallant" and "desperate" in relation to the Rajputs, which seem to display an inappropriate preference towards them and attempt to elicit an emotional response from readers in their favour. The fact that the referenced text itself uses such language is inconsequential, because Wikipedia must remain neutral, even if our sources are not.
Alivardi (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood but what about this as neutral,

500 killed or wounded[4]

Few Surrendered

Several hundreds chose the desperate alternative of venturing over the rocks. Many died in this attempt.[5]

Does this sound neutral?

And how about removing "Mughals" where it says 1000-1400 Mughals, making it just 1000-1400. We already know that Rajputs were fighting on behalf of Mughal Empire. And it was a mix of both Rajput and Mughal Soldiers. So there is no point to mention Mughals after the number. Also 1000-1400 is an assumption. Not exact number or has mention of it in the reference given.

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 15:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I have no problem with correcting the Mughals and troop numbers part. The escape attempt section seems too wordy for an infobox and still includes the word "desperate".
Alivardi (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks.
WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 15:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are adding jadaun fake story with bharatpur state page Maharajaranjitsingh123 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I did not add anything to that article. I only reverted the changes which you had made. Please refer to my edit summary for my reasons.
Alivardi (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content about his modelling career ,where he became 1st asian to have won world's best model and other modelling work. No media image such as most desirable men in india , biz personallity of the year , ormax media etc. About his personal life. His media image.

Awards section is not complete and full table of awards should be updated Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Requests for edits go on the article talk page, not the talk page of each individual editor.
Alivardi (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me do this because iam a great devotee of Jagannath and I have researched on him Pratimatripathy (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03

Hello, I'm Ouchmynips. Hi , I am new to Wikipedia and I noticed you removed my edit on the PAL family page. I am of ethnic Hindu Bangladeshi Zamindari descent, and my ancestors, with the Pal surname have for as long as we can remember also been a strong presence in the Chittagong district of Bangladesh. It is hard to find sources and records of the British East India company from the 19th century but my great grand father Jamuni Chandra Pal ( later anglicized to Paul ) ran and provided the entire boating and maritime infrastructure to the East India company for shipping and logistics from Bengal to Rangoon. I hope this satisfies you and you restore my edit at the earliest. Thank you.

​ Hi. I've checked the citation you provided but I'm not seeing any mention of a relationship between the Pals of Chittagong and the Pals of Sylhet, who this article is about. Is there any reason why you believe they're the same family? Remember, Pal is not an unusual surname and not everyone with it has to be related.
Alivardi (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word Mirashdar(মিরাশদার) is said to be rightful heir as per বাংলা ভাষার বিবর্তনমূলক অভিধান . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnsalsq (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibnsalsq: Firstly, a new citation needs to be included in an articles text when you add new information. Secondly, in regards to the word Mirashdar, what the role actually is would be more relevant to the context of the article as opposed to the literal meaning of the word. As an example, the literal meaning of the title Chowdhury is "holder of four". That doesn't mean it makes sense to include that meaning whenever the word is mentioned.
Alivardi (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or Hemu was son of a Rajpurohit (Chief Priest) of Raja Ishwar Chandra of Maccheri kingdom of Rajputana during 1490s and early 1500s,in present day Rajasthan. Puran Chand was a Brahmin and after Mughals capture of north India became a saint and lived at Brindavan in the Ashram of Vallabh Sampdray. Manuscripts of Puran Chandra activities are available in Ashram even at present times. He was not a supplier only of Salt Petre (Gun Powder) but manufactured canons in Rewari with Portuguese help and supplied Cannons and Gun powder to Sher Shah Suri's army during 1530s. There is no bar on Brahmins to do innovative works. He was the first Canon manufacturer in North India. Only Mughal king Babur had brought cannons in north India in 1526 for the first time. There are many references to this. This fact that Hemu was a Brahmin needs to be placed on page Hemu. Just because Abul Fazal, Akbar's record keeper described Hemu as a trader of Salt Petre in Akbarnama, Hemu is written as a Vaishy (Bania). All his family members were Brahmins, mostly Purohits with various kingdoms of Rajputs of that time, that had helped him to become a king himself in short time. 103.82.80.206 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iseefire1001 if I thought your concerns were justified. The IP's edit on Iseefire1001's talk page is pretty convincing but the other diffs don't show comparable changes.

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. In that regard an IP editor is stale within a few days, and there's been no activity from that IP since 27 Mar. A block right now would be preventing nothing.

A {{uw-login}} caution on Iseefire1001's talk page may have been more productive but would now be pointless. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Thanks for replying. Honestly, I wasn't really expecting a block at this point. I just wanted confirmation that there was evidence of wrongdoing here, in case there is ever a repeat of this incident.
Alivardi (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP199.82.243.104, is just one of many IPs ran by the same person. See this edit warring report. Watch your back. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Noted. I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks bud.
Alivardi (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you reverted the edit I made, which added the details of the subject's family background. The details are completely correct and taken from the same source as the rest of the details in the article. Many thanks. Zindarood (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I had explained my reasons on my edit summary, but I'll elaborate. Firstly, I cannot find a mention of Abdul Wahab Chowdhury on the pages you cited. Secondly, Abdul Wahab is not relevant to this article's subject, since their only apparent connections are that they were very distantly related and that Abdul Wahab had taught at the latter's school two centuries before he was born. This article is about Abdul Matin Chowdhury and any content in it should be directly relevant to him. I hope this cleared up any confusion.
Alivardi (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear mention in that section of the biography though the page numbers may have been incorrect in my haste. It is normal in biographies to note significant relationships, and in Sufism you ought to know that the idea of spiritual lineage and forebears is even more important than genetic lineage. Maulana was very proud of his connection to Shah Abdul Wahab Chowdhury, and referred constantly to the influence of his teachings. But there is no point explaining this to the ignorant. Zindarood (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Petty insults aren't gonna get you anywhere. If you want to write about Abdul Wahab Chowdhury, feel free to create an article for him. Here are instructions on writing your first article. I wish you the best of luck.
Alivardi (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would like, however belatedly, to apologise for my tone, and I defer to your experience on these matters. Zindarood (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zindarood: No problem, looking back at these messages, I think I could have been less blunt myself. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alivardi. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants. If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}} Thanks, UserNumber (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RationalThinkerHindu (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Dear Alivardi,[reply]

It seems data of particular Kings are deleted deliberately. Every now and then we see changes and now entire history is removed for Maharaja Jawahar Singh and Maharaja Suraj Mal . Could you let me know why this has happened. Also , it seems Wikipedia is doing biased editing for particular community and removing data for other communities.

Regards, RationalThinker

@RationalThinkerHindu: Not the entire history, just your edit which had violated copyright. This was explained both in my edit summary and the message I had left on your talk page. Hope this cleared things up.
Alivardi (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at the blond main page or if want to talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia (on the talk page, right at the bottom I made a section) I want to know are you allowed to edit possible mythical people as blonde only in the Asia section. All of them ethnic groups and historical are not unconfirmed as blonde, that's the mainstream, only a minority view them as blond. I checked and nobody as ever edit any of that since the blond wiki page was created inul 2 weeks ago. Those are ethnic groups don't correspond with modern ethnic groups and other descriptions give them a different version than blond. It doesn't seem like a place to edit historical ethnic groups, the Europe, Oceanic, Africa section doesn't have any of that either. -- Shinoshijak (talk) , 23 April 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ This isn't a topic that I am particularly familiar with and I don't believe I'd be able to provide any meaningful contribution to your discussion. If you're after an unbiased third opinion, I recommend making a request here. Hope that helps.
Alivardi (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a third person opinion but I really don't know if I'm doing it right. I read your dispute with Hunan201p, I think you handled it well. If there's nothing wrong please tell me. Here is the pageh ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan is at the very bottom Queenplz (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I'm sorry, but I am not interested in joining another dispute. If you want to request a third opinion, follow the instructions here. Best of luck.
Alivardi (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alivardi Why you changed the content despite I have mentioned a authenticated source by a very famous historian james tod. I can also give you the newer and other editions of his book so you do not need to complaint poor writing and all. I am updating it again kindly download the book through my given reference link (newer & clear writing edition) than lets discuss. You can check the James tod publication and all the details below 'see also' link and go to the publication segment, Also please tell the reason for removing the pictures & See Also links??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaitanyasinghshekhawat (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ The citation you added, Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India by James Tod, was written nearly 200 years ago. As per WP:AGE MATTERS (a Wikipedia policy), using sources this old can be problematic. It is especially inappropriate in the case of this article, since you used it to replace content from a much newer reference. Using more recent editions doesn't change these issues. This is ignoring the fact that Tod's text is filled with inaccuracies which make it a poor reference.

However, the bigger issue is your style of writing, which was fairly confusing and in some parts made little sense. For example, you seem to imply that Shaikh Burhan had been the father of Shekha, which I'm sure was not your intention. I understand the difficulties of using English as a second language, but the English Wikipedia needs its editors to have a strong competence in it (see WP:COMPETENCE). You might find it easier to make contributions to the Wikipedia of your native language. For example, the Hindi Wikipedia has a page for Shekha here. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Alivardi (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page details are almost 500 years old so I have tried to relate it more near past which is 200 years ago, also james tod publication is trusted by many government & history departments of various indian universities & senior historians so you can check that also. He spend most of his life in india rajputana or current Rajasthan state(its not your mistake I understand you are not from india). If you talk about your reference writer even he is also lived india almost more than 100 years ago so even his reference is also not trusted or authenticated go to here for his life details. It could be understand james tod spend a lot of more years in Rajputana but A H bingley spend almost nothing in this region so james tod details are more accurate compare to him also he have mentioned almost 50 pages with the details but A H bingley wrote 2 or 3 pages with no details that is also prove my point also second thing it is not only about the edition there are many new books by some other writers I will add them for the reference too. For the example you said the concept of father of Shekha I have corrected it please check and will update in again in more accurate terminology with accurate data. I request you to not delete all the content without discussion, will talk for any other issue. Chaitanyasinghshekhawat (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC) comment added by Chaitanyasinghshekhawat (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ My apologies for the late reply. The qualifications you mentioned for Tod mean little beside the fact that the use of antiquated texts as citations is problematic, as I had mentioned previously. While it may be true that perspectives from closer to the time of a subject can have value, this would not apply here due to the separation of three centuries between Shekha and Tod. And again, the bigger issue in the article is the standard of your writing. I mentioned the confusing description of the relationship between Shekha and Shaikh Burhan as only an example; it is not the only wording problem in the article and besides, has still not been corrected. Since your edits, the page has been marked for having multiple issues, i.e the writing and the inappropriate promotional description of the subject; these were not problems which had existed previously. As I had stated earlier, I suggest that your efforts may be better spent on your own native language's version of the page. And if you are to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I strongly urge you to include page numbers in your citations, which would otherwise be of little use. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two battles of chamkaur were fought. Its title should be second battle of chamkaur. Please edit ^^^^ Ama975193 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamkaur Ama975193 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this source ^[1]

. Sir two battles of Chamkaur were fought so the name of this title of Second battle of chamkaur. Please edit it. I would be highly thankful to u. Check the above source ^^^^ Ama975193 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alivardi,

I am trying to be really nice and come to a solution between us when clearly you are disagreeing over and over. I am apparently not the first that you have disagreed with such as users like Tubi719 and TruthSeeker78692. TruthSeeker specifically had the same disagreement I had with you and my most recent edit was thanked by Nithin. You even said for yourself that you would sources and rudely told me not to let others do the work not realizing that I am inexperienced in giving adding citations. I would have preferred a warmer welcome and you tell me often that you wanted to talk to me from the beginning. If you kindly look back at our own conversation history you will clearly see that not once did you suggest a compromise but rather you suggested I get consensus from the Islamic Board and although that is a valid suggestion, it is very wrong for you to say that you were trying to compromise by talking to me directly as I was trying to do. After this final edit where I did as you said (adding sources) to the previous version, you AGAIN have made a revert but this time belittling my opinion with your comment of those views on unity being “mere lip service” as opposed to directly referring to those practices. What makes it an invalid contention because I don’t think a single person will say “stabbing the effigies of the revered Sunni caliphs in Iran by some [not alp]” and “although this may go against the views of Iranians at large about unity, especially due to the emphasis of Sunni-Shia relations by the supreme Iranian leaders” are not directly linked. Please tell me how people stabbing effigies representing those dear to Sunnis is not in direct contradiction to the views of the leaders about Sunni-Shia relations. I think I have a point here I will make a final revert to your change. This time please TALK to me I am open to know what you suggest as opposed to directing me to the Islamic Board consensus page. Physics7 (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alivardi. I just wanted to let you know that I gave a direct piece of evidence of the Iranian leaders being against these type of practices and ironically a good source was the exact same source that was quoted for the effigy stabbing and it (the fatwa about abusing companions) was the immediate next sentence or few sentences from what you mentioned. I included it under a reference number 4 next to the word “fatwa” and hopefully this will finally allow us to stand at mutual grounds. Physics7 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​There's a lot to unpack here, so I'll go through it point-by-point:

1. You've had three different editors say that the best action is to open a talk page discussion (see here, here and here). You say you've got backing from other editors; this would have been the best way to prove it. I really don't see why you were so reluctant.
2. You say you were attempting to open dialogue for compromise, yet you forced your changes on the article immediately after each message. This is not conductive to a polite and progressive debate. It suggests to me that you weren't even going to take my views into account since you didn't even allow me the chance to reply. Do you not see the contradiction of you saying "please talk to me", yet not allowing me the chance to respond? This type of behaviour is mentioned on the third sentence of the edit warring page; I really urge you to read this before you interact with any other editors.
3. I wasn't the one that told you "not to let others do the work" (see here).
4. I wasn't intending to belittle you when I said "mere lip service". I was actually describing Khomeini, who was the one doing it.
5. In regards to you asking "how people stabbing effigies representing those dear to Sunnis is not in direct contradiction to the views of the leaders", this goes against Wikipedia's policy of No original research. This means that unless your source outright states something (in this case, being respectful of Muhammad's companions), you can't mention it in the article.
6. With that last point in mind, your latest source which you just mentioned is far more approprate in that regard and I am perfectly happy with its use. I am letting you know now that I will cut down your wording slightly since it deviates a bit too much from the article subject (see WP:ROC).
7. As a final note, I will remind you again that in the future, please use the article talk page to discuss any changes you make that seem controversial. This whole mess could have been avoided if you had done so when I had initially told you.
   Alivardi (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you meant by number 1. Do you mean I didn’t mention which editors were in agreement with my edits? I mentioned at least 3 and not sure if there were more. For the second point why am I the one forcing something here and not making a discussion? I even double-checked our conversation history to make sure what I was saying is correct in this talk page about the whole compromise issue and sending you messages on your talk page but you didn’t respond and instead told me to get a consensus (the other options being actually talking or a dispute resolution where I neither wanted the latter). I made the edit thinking nobody will disagree and I was shocked that you had reverted it. What I did was revert it back and in my comment asked you why you would do something like that and how wrong it was so from the start I was telling you what was wrong. You only kept saying “not censored” which didn’t really address the problem I had with it and I responded by telling you not to consider it as such. Whether I am wrong or right is irrelevant but I did clearly address your points and I felt very hurt when you kept repeating “not censored” whilst reverting it, especially as you were more experienced on Wikipedia and brought other editors into our heated dispute which was topped off by the whole warring thing. The 3-revert violation rule by the way is within a 24-hour period which we both did so that was out of the line. A revert from vandalism doesn’t count as a violation but this was was more of a dispute and disagreement so that wouldn’t be fair to hold against me either. I was also upset when you told me not to make other editors do my work when I clearly just didn’t know how to properly make references and it wasn’t a matter of not having references because I copy-pasted them my edit comment. Fortunately I figured out how to cite references. Let us put this past us but I am still surprised why would you include such information? There is a ton of information in our everyday life that we don’t mention for a variety of reasons and consequences like the colour of our bodily waste or how many white people in London eat their nasal mucus. We don’t call that censorship if it isn’t mentioned because it shouldn’t BE mentioned. Physics7 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally pressed publish too soon so just as a continuation... because it shouldn’t BE mentioned. I agree with you about mentioning it if it has academic or another type of value abd represents the true opinion of the group at large and hence painting a correct picture but something which is 1) from a source that mentions practices and opinions of rejected scholars like ayatollah Shirazi, Yasir Habib and other political thought of such scholars 2) misrepresents (as most do not follow those scholars mentioned above) and paints a wrong picture as these things are disallowed by the Iranian scholars who are taught otherwise in the Islamic seminars of Qom 3) has no academic value under the light of the legal verdicts that surround those practices unless you specifically mention the proponents of those practices and contrast it with the larger view of scholars who are accepted by the wider Shia community on those practices and the view of those proponents by the community then yes this would definitely paint a much better picture, be of greater academic value for those who want to research Shia practice and opinion, and on top of that avoid the consequences of the negative portrayal where a simple-minded reader would not be able to differentiate Shia opinion from the opinion of those who the community are always speaking out against Physics7 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you. I tried to be as polite as I could in my last message, but it's evident that you didn't properly read it since you are still accusing me of saying "not to let others do the work". I repeat, that was another editor, not me.

I strongly reccomend that you listen to what I have said, because I've already had one Administrator suggest that I report you for disruptive editing. Try to familiarise yourself with our policies, otherwise you're going to keep being involved in unnecessary editing disputes.

I have no interest in being involved in this matter any further. I request that unless there are any more issues with the article, that you please stop contacting me. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine with me, but you can’t just ASSUME I didn’t read what you said. I have no idea why I thought you were the one who told me “not to let others do the work” in any case that shouldn’t be a reason for a shift in tone in this message. Take care Physics7 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir Whts yr problem Jat Community Sunny 12:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

Please support me sir Sunny 12:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

Sunny 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

Please help me sir & support me please Sunny 14:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

You can view it here: Template:Did you know nominations/Pratapgarh Kingdom.

I encourage you to nominate future articles you create, expand 5x in size, or improve to GA, as most of the content in DYK is from North America and Europe. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi, The information in bharatpur state about origin of sinsinwar is sourced from a gazetter source of 19th century which is not reliable. In gazetter it is wrongly claimed that Balchandra was a Jadoun Rajput because time line of balchandra coincide roughly with time of Gaurid invasion. no contempory evidence of 12th centuries mentions these jadoun bhatti clan. Moreover geneologies of jadoun bhatti clan itself seems sourced from some Pala fudatories of region during tripatrite confilct. So I request you remove this unauthentic information from bharatpur state. I think you should read original source. I may provide you if you need. Thanking you. - Nightcrawler44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcrawler44 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't understand why have you accused me of vandalising. If you dont like an edit doesn't mean that it is vandalism. Also, I have seen that you are taking a chance to add something in Babur article, in favour of LGBT. I don't understand it. Was Babur NOT a hetero then? Thanks 83.137.6.245 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as appearing to be vandalism because that is what it seemed to be. Describing Aurangzeb as "4/4 Rajput" makes no sense both mathematically and genetically, with the latter being due to his mother, Mumtaz Mahal, being of Persian background. In regards to the short discussion on Babur that I had several months ago, I was advocating for the removal of an LGBT descriptive, not its addition.
Alivardi (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I'll do my best. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For contributing to the article Muhammad regularlyسب سے بڑی گڑبڑ(talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhan clan is of rajputs not gujjar and jats secondly the wiki pages about rajput history are being edited anonymously by anyone and by this wikipedia loses its credibility so please look into this problem Adityarajsingh4033 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​The content was sourced and you did not provide a valid reason for its removal.
Alivardi (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And from which source please provide it to me anonymous fake historians are roaming all around the internet please provide me source Adityarajsingh4033 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhan is a agnivanshi rajput clan Adityarajsingh4033 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Check the end of each sentence you removed content from.
Alivardi (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just listen go to a trusted source of yours and check chauhan is not just a surname but agnivanshi clan of rajputs Adityarajsingh4033 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prathviraj raaso and prathviraj Vijay are two ancient books written on chohan family in both book's prathviraj Chauhan father is written Gurjar and his fort gurjargarh. Jogindergurjar (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhan are mainly Gurjar not rajput and they are suryavanshi king's not this fake chandravanshi Jogindergurjar (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Wikipedia rules. I did make a reply to a number of edit requests on Talk:Muhammad, but only one really I think was borderline abusive. The one which you replied too. Alright, I apologize for that, and if the others were also abusive, for them too (though I don't think they were). I'm just getting really tired of this demand like every month (that's been going on for like 10+ years) when Wikipedia has made clear that the Muhammad images are acceptable. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For creating the beautiful article Mawlāna Nūruddin Gowharpuri —

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pratapgarh Kingdom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the king of Kachar died whilst invading the Pratapgarh Kingdom, his widow Kamala commanded its conquest herself to avenge him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pratapgarh Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pratapgarh Kingdom), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Because of the COVID19 pandemic, there are a lot of countries’ international postal systems not reopened yet. We would like to send all the participants digital postcards and digital certifications for organizers to your email account in the upcoming weeks. For the paper ones, we will track the latest status of the international postal systems of all the countries and hope the postcards and certifications can be delivered to your mailboxes as soon as possible.

Take good care and wish you all the best.

This message was sent by Wikipedia Asian Month International Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alivardi, please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I'm being attacked by users Chaipau and Aman Kumar Goel and being accused of promoting Bengali POV in the Miya people article. The article originally contained barely anything - it was me that revived it. Chaipau noticed this and started causing havoc in the article (check its history). Goel actually reported me once for my involvement in the Bakarkhani incident and got me BLOCKED a few months ago. He STRONGLY opposes everything about me and is bringing up my past interactions with him to use against me. I only mean good but these Wikimenaces are making me look like the bad guy. Would really appreciate your support. UserNumber (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the content of the page which I added from reputable source? Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​What reputable source? There was no citation.
Alivardi (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was about to add that too, i was working on multiple sources. Also you should ask for citation first instead of removing the content outright. Anyway I added multiple citations and editing it as we speak. So just give someone a little bit of time and/or hint before removing something.Sajaypal007 (talk)

​I had no reason to expect you to add citations over an hour after your initial edit. Why not add the content when you had the citations ready? There's no rush.
Alivardi (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was using wiki on mobile at that time hence the delay, anyway i did add the citations now.Sajaypal007 (talk)

I would be helpful to assist you in WikiProject BangladeshMajun e Baqi (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ali-vardi! User:Alivardi - At it's best your warnings on my talk-page for my edits is *cute*! "ONLY! PERSONAL! BLOCK! those worlds carry weight. And, that was a quick edit from a seasoned(?) editor. Unfortunately, I'm not a full-time editor (Is there one? :-)). I suggest we refresh understanding of WP:WHYBLOCK WP:NOPUNISH WP:AC/DS It's not difficult to go back and refresh. I'm a wiki donor, and avid user - At best, you can question my tone, but calling it "personal attacks" on my first ever edits/remarks is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. I see a pattern here. The editor, whose unexplained edits were questioned could have responded. But, NOpe! It has to be round-robbin pack hunt for showcase neutrality. And, archives are editable for a reason. Wiki discourages it's editing. But, if they really wanted to STOP all archive edits, its less than a MINUTE of tech-effort to change a flag in the code. You retorted to quick acid-washing of all my edits. But, chose to completely ignore the unexplained (borderline) condescending editorial responses of those who have admin rights to Chhatrapati Shivaji) wiki. I expected better! You can BLOCK me, but that may not be adhering to wiki-guidelines. And, the above is not a PERSONAL attack. [CAPS for emphasis] And, not everyone is for HIRE. H2umvee (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I was wondering if you (and anyone you know that could take part) could help me on the Islami Bishwakosh article. It was a very large project in Bangladesh, and am very surprised that the article didn't exist previously. UserNumber (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the Help section to add the reference links, but didn't get much understanding of it. Have added the reference URl, hope that's also the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetankcp (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original Barnstar Hello! Thank you for correcting the mistake I made in the article Nana Saheb! I shall not repeat such mistakes in future. 103.66.81.47 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alivardi,

I’d like your help in dealing with the current situation in the page: Kingdom of Jeypore which has been semi-locked by a bunch of British Admins. They have edited sloppily and mentioned many irrelevant facts to disdain the dynasty’s rule. They describe them as a little kingdom in many places despite the kingdom having an area of more than 26,000 km2.

Sir would you please help me and edit that article, I have seen your work in some other history articles therefore decided to seek your help in this matter. Indopaedia (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Alivardi The article about Maharana Pratap is very short, but there is a lot about him in the history ,so I would like and hope that you would help me in this topic and I am going to edit and add more information about this legend. ThanksShiamPothuganti (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I notice u made some changes in Wikipedia on ur own without any reF,Like u remove the image of Rana Sanga His Legacy section and also Seige of Mandsaur which are important things u removed from sources.Please ree add it especially his Image. Paul white2013 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul white2013: It's pretty obvious that you are Showbiz826. Continuing to make new accounts after having been blocked for sockpuppetry is not gonna help you get back to editing here.
Alivardi (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8th august some IP address removed the citations and a few lines without any ground from Jawahar Singh article. The lines were supported by the source too. Some 10 days later another user came and he removed the whole section of maonda battle with reason that it is unsourced, he didnt see previous edits, if he had seen then he would know that it was not unsourced but someone a few days ago just removed the source. Instead of reverting the edits. This user removed the old section and added a new one which is lot bigger and doesnt make any sense.

The problem with this section is many fold.

• Although it cites source, the section modify the sources to look it like less offensive, mention of defeat of Jawahar singh in later battle at kama is removed. See the page of Battle of Maonda and Mandholi for full information which is suppressed in this article.
• Due to so much info and the offensive terms removed, article doesnt make much sense.
• The article of Jawahar Singh looks more like article of Maonda battle, the whole article is filled with just this event from Pushkar bath to the battle. Nothing much about Jawahar Singh himself.

The article at the time of your last edit on 7th august was good. The info about battle was short and precise. It was backed by sources too which some other user removed. I believe the article should be reverted to that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajaypal007: I don't believe a full revert is the best action here; the article seemed to have problems even prior to that initial edit and some of the subsequent edits have been beneficial. I'd instead advise that you correct any issues that you have spotted in the current version of the article. Perhaps even open a discussion on the article talk page or contact Heba Aisha directly? You seem knowledgeable about this topic so I'll leave the ultimate decision to you. Hope that helps.
Alivardi (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: Actually I talked with Heba Aisha earlier for some other page as well and had a long futile discussion. I didn't want to create another long discussion so I asked you. Maybe I should talk to Heba again. Thanks for the reply btw. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [7]. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I heard you don't need to include citation in the lead, or introduction of a wiki article, as the introduction is a kind of summery for the main body of the article. what do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: Sure, as long as the content in question is cited in the main article and can be considered one of the (to quote WP:MOSLEAD) "most important points". Thanks for the message.
Alivardi (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for your note. I have added additional note to justify removing the content in question. "Removed a statement that is an inaccurate interpretation of a detailed court judgement by quoting a section of the press. A court judgement needs to be reviewed in full to avoid being taken out of context." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdeepakr (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble adding just a single source in the page of Shivaji while mentioning him as CSM. I seem to follow WP:HISTRW but it still being reverted. I think more than one cite should do a better job here. The page of Akbar also overuse citations when mentioning him as The Great. Should that be scrubbed off too? Thanks and please help. Jenos450 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenos450. Regarding your concerns about being reverted, RegentsPark has already elaborated on their reasoning as well as suggested what sort of source you should be looking for, so I won't repeat what has already been said. Akbar isn't exactly an example of an ideal article and it is easy to find many such problems in its content. I have now corrected the issue you had spotted there and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
Alivardi (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenos450: I actually don't think the bar for a source is very high for "popularly known as ...." - especially given the number of requests we get on the talk page. All you need to do is to find a source that says that he is popularly known as Chatrapati Shivaji or Shivaji Maharaj or Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or whatever combination is in a source. It doesn't need to satisfy HISTRS because that popularity is not historical. But, the source should be reliable and should clearly say that these are his popular names. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Regents and Alivardi, that was kind. Jenos450 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir I am trying to write on Rao Tula ram but some person called hindushatrana is reverting my edits. he even used a anon account to revert one edit of mine. Is that allowed? please help as I am new and my edits are getting reverted even if I give book name.

Hi Harishbiswal. I don't think there's any reason to be certain that the anonymous user is HinduKshatrana. I recommend for now that the best action is to discuss the edit in question with HinduKshatrana directly.
Alivardi (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks.

Hi Am Babur258 why can you change Battle of ghagra article. you not edit at last I report you. Babur258 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Pradeep, you're way too old be messing around with Wikipedia articles for fun. Find a more productive hobby.
Alivardi (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about Shivaji's conflict with Belawadi Samshtana. And he was defeated in the war and there are so many contemporary books Are available that tells about defeat of Shivaji by Belawadi Mallamma. Samodeyar (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samodeyar: When an editor adds new content to an article, it's their job to provide evidence for it in the form of citations. You say there are many books that justify your additions; cite them. Just make sure they are reliable. I'd also advise that you be careful with your wording when you add content. I'm seeing some potential neutrality issues.
Alivardi (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you . I'll correct it Samodeyar (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Excellent work on the Shah Jalal Dargah article. Interestingly enough, I've been collecting some information on this topic for the past few months though I didn't get the time to complete this project. Awesome that you've made it; making it a lot easier for me to just add any extra information I've found :) UserNumber (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Thank you! I'm glad you like the article, though I am sorry that you didn't get to finish your version. And I will of course appreciate any additions that you make.
Alivardi (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no it's totally fine! My "version" was mostly notes made on the subject - nowhere near as neat and concise.UserNumber (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAM organizers and participants!

Hope you are all doing well! Now is the time to sign up for Wikipedia Asian Month 2020, which will take place in this November.

For organizers:

Here are the basic guidance and regulations for organizers. Please remember to:

1. use Fountain tool (you can find the usage guidance easily on meta page), or else you and your participants’ will not be able to receive the prize from WAM team.
2. Add your language projects and organizer list to the meta page before October 29th, 2020.
3. Inform your community members WAM 2020 is coming soon!!!
4. If you want WAM team to share your event information on Facebook / twitter, or you want to share your WAM experience/ achievements on our blog, feel free to send an email to info@asianmonth.wiki or PM us via facebook.

If you want to hold a thematic event that is related to WAM, a.k.a. WAM sub-contest. The process is the same as the language one.

For participants:

Here are the event regulations and Q&A information. Just join us! Let’s edit articles and win the prizes!

Here are some updates from WAM team:

1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this year we hope all the Edit-a-thons are online not physical ones.
2. The international postal systems are not stable enough at the moment, WAM team have decided to send all the qualified participants/ organizers extra digital postcards/ certifications. (You will still get the paper ones!)
3. Our team has created a meta page so that everyone tracking the progress and the delivery status.

If you have any suggestions or thoughts, feel free to reach out the WAM team via emailing info@asianmonth.wiki or discuss on the meta talk page. If it’s urgent, please contact the leader directly (jamie@asianmonth.wiki).

Hope you all have fun in Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Sincerely yours,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.10

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great work at Shah Jalal Dargah, nice to see your first DYK nomination going through!:) Zayeem (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Shah Jalal Dargah at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]