User talk:Anupam

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378

 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old). 

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.

• Support
• Strong Support
• Agreed

Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end. Taal Saptak (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam! I see that you recently made an edit on Hindustani. I'd recommend you to go through Talk:Hindustani language#topic of article where I and another user:Austronesier have discussed how important it is to mention the "context" when describing Hindustani which has been used in multiple senses.

So the earlier version where I had mentioned : "In modern context, Hindustani refers to the colloquial base of Hindi and Urdu" no longer exists. Since, you have made the edits. I'd like to inform that it would be better if the older version (of above mentioned line) is restored as it mentions the "context" which is highly vital to being accurate in the concerned article (see the talk page).

From Sattvic7 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now I think my original idea was half-baked. I'm not asking you to change your support for it though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no hard feelings over the move. I intend to edit the article to explain some Lutherans' issues with the term.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupam. Is this sentence in the Kho people article:- The Kho people are likely descendants of those who arrived in the region during the Indo-Aryan migration properly sourced? Since all I can view is a bunch of snippets [1]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on Spiritual practice.

It might be helpful in the future if you edit a section, then try the "Show Preview" button, then continuing editing until you are satisfied, and only then save it. This will appear as a single edit in the edit history instead of a long chain of edits -- which makes the history easier to follow.

This is just a suggestion; if there are reasons to make a series of separate edits, you are certainly entitled to do so. Regards -- Clean Copy^talk 15:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from British Raj into Protestantism in India. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anupam, categorisation can be seen at Category:Anglicanism. Linking to WikiProjects accordingly in categorised articles would probably be a good idea consequently. Please let me know if I can help you otherwise. PPEMES (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Islamic Barnstar
		Dear Anupam, I feel good to gift you The Islamic Barnstar award for your contributions to WP:Islam. More recently to Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi and Muhammad Taqi Amini. You are making a difference on the Wikipedia. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have always appreciated your contributions for WP:ISLAM and WP:India. I am requesting you to copy-edit few of my articles like Yoda Press. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful edit to the article Immaculate Conception, and I hope you can understand why I made some edits to it. I do sincerely thank you though, because I was unable to find very much on the subject. You evidently know a lot about this, and I'm curious: what position does the Lutheran movement hold on the immaculate conception? Is it a "pious opinion"? Has it simply withered away? Achar Sva (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anupam, hoping that you are in best. Could you address the issue of copy edit in this article? Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allhallowtide has been nominated for merging with Template:Halloween. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please check the discussion at the the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As I'm sure you have probably noticed the Allhallowtide Template includes All Saints and All Souls as Main topics. Comparing the two templates, I think you will find that the Halloween Template (while containing some items that might better be under Allhallows) is very heavily oriented to pop culture, scary movies, tv episodes, costumes, etc. Given the different respective treatments, I do not see a real overlap, and therefore, think they should better remain separate, but a clearer distinction made between what belongs where. Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barn Stars, they really mean a lot to me and I feel the zeal of writing more because I know that my work is being noticed. Thanks a lot. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have sent me an alert about an email (perhaps with good advice for me), which I haven't received, although my address works for other messages. Best wishes, whether you are or are not one of the heroes on the front line. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		Great work on Pakistan and other South Asian topics! Your contributions to Wikipedia are really appreciated. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on aviation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabo

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on tourism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anupam, i am ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist, please add that The Urdu is not a dialect of Western Hindi. It is true that the two languages ​​are very similar and their speakers understand each other perfectly, but it is a mistake to consider Urdu as a dialect of Hindi, because in the same way Hindi can be considered as a dialect of Urdu. They are two independent languages but, Registers of Hindustani (Hindustani can the dialect of Western Hindi, if it's exclude Urdu, it's not important if Parental language Hindustani, is dialect of Western Hindi, so child language Urdu, should bee), Hindi and Urdu, both were divided as freed languages, Urdu for Muslims, and Hindi for Hindus. ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read your link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle - Fowler&fowler's reversal (with no consultation) of 6 months worth of edits from about 20 different users does not seem consistent with that guideline. I want to reinstate the changes Fowler&fowler rolled back as a matter of urgency. Firstly because i think a reversion that dramatic is destructive vandalism. And also so i can try to improve the most recent version so there is something optimal to discuss. Fowler&fowler repeated the reversion while i was working on the article, so the version immediately before that is not the best to discuss. Irtapil (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had left it a bit messy for a few days because i got interrupted, so the version immediately preceding the destructive edit is not the best to discuss. I want to try to improve what was there, but they did it again while i was in the process of working on the page. I know edit wars are very much frowned upon but i'm not sure what the right way to deal with this is. Irtapil (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anupam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Financial wellness".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pashtuns; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Discuss in talk please.Casperti (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupam. I have partially written an article on Pathans in India. It is not entirely complete. Feel free to contribute to it if you ever have the time and good sources. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casperti (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, i dont know why i have been blocked from creating articles on wikipedia. please see into it and help. Thank you.--Jeromeenriquez (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anglo-Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Christian

Mazhar Ali Azhar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jammu and Kashmir

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to earn Star . How to get that ?Ignostar (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your sweet contributions to 'pedia like this brownie! Just keep it up dear ;-) He@ven's Queent@lk 15:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS. Self-revert and use the talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your insinuation of this term into the Joe Biden article. It is UNDUE and it's not a term much used in the USA. I hope you are not thinking this tag should be applied to a wide range of American public figures. It's not a mainstream view that this label applies to American Politics or public discourse. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well i read some of your articles it was nice, KEEP IT UP. i having nothing to give but still i liked some of your articles (contribution).UMAGPR (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i will surely ask if i have any doubt, thank you so much for leaving a message in my talk page. i am just a new user, thank you.

thanks for your welcome cookie.😁👌 regards UMAGPR (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Peace Barnstar
		amazing. UMAGPR (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Direction of prayer at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out to edit this User:UMAGPR/St.Mary's Church Gulmarg, Kashmir article to publish, I need your help to Edit, Insert and publish this article. regards UMAGPR (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Direction of prayer 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) 01:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I corrected this "eastward orientation" business in Fixed prayer times and didn't comment any more there. But I feel this article needs more work; it leaves out important Talmudic and rabbinic commentaries in favor of quoting popular online sources. We have many Jewish editors who work very hard on their articles; an article like this doesn't represent the religion well, especially on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You really did a good job with the expansion; I'm impressed! Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider some of the recent issues like this one "contentious"? The "so he cannot win the presidential election" violates WP:SYNTH, since the source does not say that, but otherwise I'm not sure what the problem is with that edit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i see that you mentioned W28394 here [[2]] due to his disruptive editing. He clearly hasn't learnt anything as he did revert the changes again here [[3]]. I have mentioned him here [[4]] as he is doing the same for the following two articles. Jalal-ud-din Khalji and Khalji dynasty Kami2018 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, i have reverted the change to one of the article which this user was reverting without providing any evidence. I have opened up a discussion on the talk page for [[5]]. Please feel free to contribute as i am sure this user will revert this change either today or tomorrow and i cant seem to get attention from the moderators.Kami2018 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Good afternoon, I have noticed your hard work on creating the Shehimo breviary page which inspired me to create a page for the LRD ministry team and list all current publications, future projects and etc. I kindly request you to help me in writing this article page and pull together any personal assets or resources so that this page will be approved and help others find valuable information on the Indian Orthodox Prayers.

Sincerely yours, Zmalluzboyz (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ministry_of_Liturgical_Resource_Development

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening, unfortunately, I have to write on your talk page due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[6]],here [[7]] and here, [[8]].

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. I will not be engaging with him any further as he has time and again showed he is not one to be reasoned with. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time out to reply. Regarding consensus on the Hindkowan article, I would like to mention a couple of things before I get to whether it needs to be reverted to the previous version.

1) I had first edited that article on the 8th of March. For 5 whole months, nobody had a major problem with the edits on the article.

2) On 7th of August, I edited the Khalji article, which Kami2018 had already edited before.

3) On 9th of August, Kami2018 reverted my edits on the Khalji article.

4) On 10th of August, Kami2018 reverted my edits on the Hindkowan article, keep in mind he had nothing to do with that article prior to me editing the Khalji article. This only leads one to believe that me editing the Khalji article he was maintaining did not sit well with him for which he reverted the only page I had a big hand in editing.

5) Ever since, he has been senselessly accusing me of vandalism and edit wars when to be honest, the timeline of edit histories say otherwise. Rather than engaging on the talkpage and answering/countering genuine facts and reasoning, he has been trying to get me banned from wiki. Which I believe is petty and childlike and will amount to nothing more than this back and forth exchange.

Having said that, lets move on to the Hindkowan article and the changes I made to it.

1) I removed sources stating that "Other Hindko-speakers, mostly of the Hindu and Sikh faiths, have been living in Afghanistan for centuries and are known as Hindki". This is because it was not mentioned in the source provided.

2) I removed the Punjabi language tags and the Punjabi fonts because beginning with the 1981 census, speakers of Saraiki and Hindko were no longer included in the total numbers for Punjabis. Pakistan is where perhaps over 99% of the Hindkowans live and they have been classified as a distinct group of people, independent of the Punjabis and thus the Punjabi language font and tags are not required in this article. Once again, all this is well sourced information.

3) I had to remove a bunch of sources from the article, mostly because they dated from the British Raj era. The issue of whether of not such sources are reliable Wikipedia:RS has been tested time and again at all sorts of venues, including Wikipedia:RSN. The consensus has for many years been that they are not and, as such, we should not use them.

4) I had to remove countries from "regions with significant population" as the Hindkowan population in those countries was quite clearly, not 'significant' enough and amounting to only a couple hundred people (compared to 5 million in Pakistab).

4) Other than removing the above mentioned contents of the page, I also added more information to the article. All of this was well sourced and well structured.

5) Due to this, the page remained relatively inactive edit wise for 5 months before Kami2018 reverted everything, and took the article back to its out of date, poorly sourced, poorly structured version.

According to wiki, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." As mentioned above, my edits were pretty much unchanged for 5 months and thus we can assume that it by and large had the consensus of editors who came across it from March 8 to August 10 (when the user mentioned above reverted all my edits for reasons I am pretty sure we know)

Therefore, I think it goes against common sense reverting from a well sourced well structured article to a poorly sourced poorly structured article. A consensus should not be required and would have been required if the article was an essay based on opinions and not when it is an article about a demography backed with well sourced facts. As wiki says, " Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Common sense doesn't need to be a policy; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy."

W28394 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Anupam, W28394 has again started behaving in the same manner as he was acting before. He is just pushing his propaganda on pages below and i would like to bring this to your notice. Changes reverted [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] Kami2018 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kami2018, Kindly go through the talk page of the article and see that we have already discussed the changes made over a month ago and agreed to them. W28394 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Dear Sir, Many thanks for your kind words and barnstar gifts towards me. Here is a token of my appreciation towards you and your work here. Sincerely yours, Zmalluzboyz (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the user kami is wrong (both on contributes and consensus). First the "majority" of users in Khalji talk page have consensus, and that's for the edits. (You can see it for yourself). Secondly the user w28394 have merely fixed the loop holes (which were obvious) on the article. I think as a positive contributor you should do the right thing and back him up. (At least on khalji page), Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:799:5E0:6000:9C:2AFE:FC36:AD3F (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point 2A01:799:5E0:6000:9C:2AFE:FC36:AD3F. Why are my edits being reverted to a poorly sourced version on the Hindkowan article over lack of consensus whereas no such action is being taken on the Khalji Dynasty article? Various editors dispute Kami2018s edits on the Khalji Dynasty article. Editors 84.211.3.220, Hayras123, Khestwol, Akmal94, FawadAliKhan11 are only some users who have not given consensus on that article yet Kami2018 has been editing the page and POV pushing the article without any repercussions.

W28394 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tobacco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Discipline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article and shall wait for the counter argument against my edits. I shall revert it if nobody replies to the discussion. In the mean time, I would like to discuss the fact that while my edits are being reverted to a poorly sourced version on the Hindkowan article over lack of consensus, no such action is being taken on the Khalji Dynasty article. Various editors dispute Kami2018s edits on the Khalji Dynasty article. Editors .Hayras123, Khestwol, Akmal94, FawadAliKhan11. 84.211.3.220, 2A01:799:5E0:6000:9C:2AFE:FC36:AD3F are only some users who have not given consensus on that article yet Kami2018 has been editing the page and POV pushing the article without any repercussions.

W28394 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Anupam Clearly W28394 is not stopping from reverting articles and it is clear from his reverts here [[12]]. I have restored the version as supported by the talk page. Kami2018 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The others on the talk page have been discussing the same issues I have been discussing. I have not received a reply on the talk page countering the edits by Kami2018. I believe you are saying that when you tag multiple users its not canvassing but when I do it is considered canvassing for some odd reason. That is interesting to say the least. I believe you adhere to the warning as well since you initiated it.

W28394 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had only tagged individuals who have contributed to the Khalji Dynasty article. You can confirm through the talk page. W28394 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this edit. This guy looks like a POV pusher to me. He recently removed the mention of Hinduism from this article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wesleyan theology

added links pointing to Evening Prayer and Morning Prayer

Kashmiri language

added a link pointing to Persian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Pakistan Star
		Great work on Pakistan related articles! You do fantastic work. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ecumenism

added a link pointing to Mennonite Church

World Council of Churches

added a link pointing to Mennonite Church

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Connected contributor (paid) has been nominated for merging with Template:Paid article. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Syed Moiz Balkhi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Moiz Balkhi (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mennonite Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. You are owed a million thanks! Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks again for your help on South Asian languages. Owe you big. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Abraham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Having had your suggested edit reverted twice, your next step is to go to the Talk page and explain why you feel the changes you wish to introduce would improve the article. Achar Sva (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindu Raj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavendish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I received an e-mail message from you, asking me if I mind that you send me some information. I don't mind, but be sure to only send me information that is personal or otherwise sensitive. If it is not sensitive or personal, you can send it here. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

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

Christianity in Bihar

added a link pointing to Capuchin

Christianity in India

added a link pointing to Capuchin

Newar people

added a link pointing to Capuchin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain why you changed multiple redirects for the Valmiki caste to redirect to Chuhra? A lot of castes in India are known as Valmiki/Balmiki not limited to the Chuhra of Punjab. Your redirect changes are not only confusing/compounding the two but also likely created misdirects. I will be reverting these edits unless you have something significant to add. Gotitbro (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupam, this book has a nice section on Sindh which I think you might enjoy looking at:

• Hasan, Mushirul (2008), Towards Freedom: Documents on the Movement for Independence in India 1939, Part I, Indian Council of Historical Research/Oxford University Press

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Islamic Barnstar
		Great work on Islam related articles. You did excellent work on Deobandi related articles. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Hinduism Award
		You are the rare one that people have always imagined about. I saw your edits and page creations and I must say I am really impressed especially with Jwala Ji Temple creation. Keep up your Wikipedia passion on Hinduism articles! LearnIndology (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting this project! Greatly appreciated. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of John Montgomery Cooper 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) 00:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Anupam, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Torwali people 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! SL93 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would appreciate it if you stopped edit warring at Malakand District‎ and History of Malakand. First, predatory journals should not be used – I don't think this would ever be negotiable. Second, it's not up to me to gain consensus for removing unsourced text; the WP:BURDEN is no you to provide sources for this text. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User:Uanfala, actually the articles you mention included the information prior to me even touching them. I simply improved the sourcing and now have even supplanted the reference you found to be inadequate. Per WP:BRD, it is now up to you to gain consensus for the removal of the reliably sourced information. I will continue to revert you if you edit war against the status-quo version. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anupam, a lot of the content was there before you came along. But it was entirely unsourced. Your "improvement" [13] consisted in adding references to a source – academicjournals.org/journal/JLC/article-full-text/CBBA2D553114 – that was on the spam blacklist. I don't know how you might have failed to notice that. And at least some of that content, like the story of Mahmud's invasion of Swat, has been characterised as legendary by an actually reliable source, and one that you've ostensibly cited elsewhere (that's Scerrato's paper mentioned at Talk:Torwali people). – Uanfala (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your question: I found that article from your contribs. I haven't look at any other articles there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I believe that a substantial chunk of your contributed content may need to be examined (though I don't want to get involved in any of that). I've recently had the chance to look at the content you've contributed to two articles – as you're aware, I've commented at Template:Did you know nominations/Torwali people and at Talk:Din-i Ilahi#Akbar's respect for Jesus. In both cases there are serious failures of WP:RS and WP:OR. These are basic principles of Wikipedia; we may see newbies who break them, but it's extremely disappointing to have an experienced and productive editor disregarding them so often.
You should correct me if I'm wrong, but your approach to article writing seems to involve going on Google Books, typing a search phrase and then writing up what you see in the snippets and previews on the first page of results. Searching like that can be useful for identifying potentially relevant sources, it can even work when you're combing for simple facts (like birth years of people, or altitudes of mountains), but that's no way to write articles. Get the books and papers and read them. Use a library. Ask for specific resources at the resource exchange. That way, it will take a lot longer, yes – but the results will be better. – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has continued at User talk:Uanfala#Re:Edit warring and sources. – Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays! Wishing you and your family a wonderful Xmas! Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work on creating the article on Torwali people. I learned so much about my region. Thank you! Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You recently added some information to Hindu Raj, including The Hindu Raj mountain range runs between Chitral and Gilgit; they are located south of the Cavendish. Cavendish links to a disambiguation page, and none of the entries on that page have anything to do with Pakistan or the wider region. Neither can I find anything online. What is 'the Cavendish'? Lennart97 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Buddhism Barnstar
		You are without any doubt the rare one. Saw your edits related to Buddhism, and I must say, you publish quality content, such as Shanti Stupa. I am looking forward to collaborate with you on topics related to Buddhism. :) LearnIndology (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anupam reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.