User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Zafar Mahal (Mehrauli), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will provide a citation. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Kinda looks like you are creating new accounts just to give yourself user awards. That's not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar GOOD WORK! TheTrueHistorian123 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. LearnIndology (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Asar-us-Sanadid

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Asar-us-Sanadid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.mpositive.in/tag/bagh-e-nazir/ and https://vikramjits.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/athar-us-sanadid-by-sir-syed/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. firefly ( t · c ) 14:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Delhi - Nepalese contribution

You have repeatedly inserted the following paragraph into the narrative of the article on the Siege of Delhi, presumably to justify the inclusion of Nepal and its flag in the article's info. box:

Rana Jang Bahadur, the de-facto ruler of Nepal, dispatched 3,200 Gurkha soldiers to aid the British. A few months later, Jang Bahadur arrived with more reinforcements. In the Awadh theatre, Nepal’s army turned out to be very useful to the British.

There are several objections to this paragraph. Firstly, it is directly copypasted from the source. Even if the copypasted text is only a few sentences, the practice is frowned upon by the community. Secondly, the source does not mention the Siege of Delhi at all, except for two unrelated sentences: "The Great Indian Rebellion began to unravel after the British captured Delhi in September 1857." and "By January 1858, Delhi had been long pacified."

The mention of 3,200 Gurkhas dispatched by Jang Bahadur does not appear in any source on the siege. {The Gurkhas in the besieging army belonged to regiments which had been raised for the Company's army in 1815.) The Nepalese contribution in the Awadh theatre was several hundred miles from Delhi, and took place from February 1858 onwards, months after the Siege of Delhi ended.

In short, the information and the reference you have inserted are not relevant to the article. (The site supports the view that Jang Bahadur and Nepal aided the British during the Indian Rebellion, to be sure, but not in any material way during the Siege of Delhi.)

Your assertion that "it is clearly mentioned in the section The siege June through July, that the maharaj of patiala helped the british army" also does not stand up to examination. The text merely states that "A regiment of Sikhs from Patiala defected to the rebels and made their way to Delhi..." It does not state where this regiment was stationed or whether or not it formed part of the besieging army. The supporting cited source is apparently no longer available. Again, the Maharaja of Patiala may well have supported the British, but does not appear to have contributed to the Siege of Delhi. Please do not make assertions not supported by the text.

I will revert again. If you in turn revert, without citing a much more pertinent source, I will regard it as edit warring and turn the matter over to the administrators. HLGallon (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

2020 Delhi riots

Can you please read the talk page as to why the content you added was not there, its been discussed ad infinitum and rejected. He has not yet been prosecuted so its inclusion may violate wp:blp. Its in the wrong place anyway. In addition, it is poorly formatted, can you self revert and take it to talk?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note the page is under 1rr, so you may in fact now need this

Your recent editing history 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.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:brd, if you are reverted make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also read WP:NOTDUMB, shouting does not make your argument any stronger.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oct 21

You really need to read wp:npa wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to genre of The Kashmir Files

Hi Tamjeed Ahmed, your edit goes against the consensus reached here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama

As such, might I request that you follow consensus, or revert your edit. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files

Hi. You had added 'historical fiction' as the genre, which isn't supported by the cited source. The cited source calls it a "drama". The cited source is reliable and have expertise in the field. I have reverted your edit. You can restore the text, if you find a strong reliable source to back it. Until then, please refrain from adding it. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse host

Dear Tamjeed Ahmed,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

• Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
• templates to use and, of course:
• the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Delhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Fort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Delhi

I've warned you once. I am warning you once again. Please don't attempt a subterfuge of WP rules. Open a thread on the talk page, propose something there, and let a discussion proceed until a new consensus emerges, or does not. Pinging administrator @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. But will you please clarify why are you reverting my other edits too? I added the information about the mayor and dy. mayor, but you removed it why? And why did you removed the image of people celebrating Eid in Jama Masjid? It is one of the most popular festivals of Delhi. Why did you remove it too? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please bring these issues up on Talk:Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to discuss about everything on the talk page when there is no doubt and controversy in an edit. Information about the mayor is necessary and adding a picture of people celebrating a festival will only promote and celebrate the diversity of the city. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

The GA instructions begin: "Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article and be familiar with its subject and cited sources. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across." You currently seem to have edited the article once, just after nominating it. Any reason why I should not revert your nom? Have you any previous experiences at GA? Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Honestly, I don't have any previous experience at GA but genuinely Taj Mahal should be a Good Article. That's why I nominated it. Also, I don't think that page need many edits, but I will surely add more contributions to it in future. Thanks! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not terribly convincing. Have you consulted the two main editors in recent years, as you are supposed to do? They are User:The Herald and User:Nemonoman. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok I am taking my request back for now. Will do it in future when I meet the criteria. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the ping, and for the GAN. But the article is not in a great shape. It was in my to do list, but I haven't got enough time to give it a go for GA. I'd suggest to withdraw the nomination, and practice more editing on other articles and get yourself familiarize with the GA requirements. I appreciate the effort, but this nomination will probably go down as a quick fail. It needs a lot of work. As a former FAC and a delisted GA, with over a million views and 800+ watchers, the article is definitely worth a GA at least, but it ain't ready. So, please expand and edit the article before nominating. Thank you and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure! As I said earlier, I will surely try to do it in future. Thank you. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamjeed Ahmed:

Your suggestion is a great compliment to the editors who made this page so much better over the years. But I'm with @The Herald: It's not GA-ready at the moment.

I don't wikiedit much anymore -- battled scarred from too many edit wars with determined misinformation trolls, so I'm out of the game. Right now, the article is a PGA (Pretty Good Article). In current form, however, it would not make it through a GA review.

That said, if you want to do some fixes and have the energy and determination, nominate it, and address the many issues other editors will bring up. In many ways, that's an easier task then trying to clean up everything in the dark. Let the GA review illuminate the problems, then work to fix them.

I may be able to help a bit, if you want.

Nemonoman (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nemonoman Johnbod I kinda forgot about this conversation. Currently, me and DreamRimmer are trying to bring it up to GA. Majority of the fixes are done and minor ce and cleanup is left. If any of you are interested, please drop by and help out. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas war

You may have missed this but there was an RfC about the inclusion of other countries to the infobox, which was closed with "no consensus". Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents. Therefore, I have reverted your edits which placed U.S. in the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it. US has literally attacked a belligerent of the other side, that clearly makes them the opposing belligerent. Isn't it common sense? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Just regarding this, you should be aware that the Arab-Israeli conflict is under 1RR. You made two reverts in regards to this:

1. 12:18, 1 January 2024
2. 12:50, 1 January 2024

I have already reverted the second one, but please be careful not to violate 1RR in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I am really sorry for leaving it blank! Will make sure to fill it in future. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)