Userpage	Talk page	Awards	Articles	Sources

I see that you were involved in the promotion of this article to GA, so I wanted to know your opinion on this. The opening sentence in the lead I think is WP:ISATERMFOR. Since the article is about the state and not the title, it would best read "Shirvanshahs were the rulers of Shirvan". But then, I guess the title of the article would have to be plural, i. e. "Shirvanshahs". If I'm correct on this, I will move the page. (I believe this would be a technical move and not warrant a full discussion and voting procedure.) Aintabli (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, technically it's about both the state and title, they're too closely intertwined to make a distinction. I don't mind using "Shirvanshahs" as the article name and slightly changing the lede to fit that. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, I have made the appropriate changes in the article and posted a requested move. Aintabli (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Makula family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you've been involved in editing the infobox at Kurdistan, I wanted to get your opinion on my edit from August which was subsequently reverted[1]. I have some issues with some of the parameters of the current infobox like "Stateless nation" which is about Kurds and not Kurdistan, and the "demonym(s)" parameter since it excludes everyone but Kurds. Any thoughts? Having some consensus on the infobox would be great to prevent back and forth editing. Semsûrî (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree, using "Stateless nation" and "demonym(s)" feels off. A more detailed map than the current one would be nice as well. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Safavid queens consort indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've posted a comment regarding the recurrence of planned meatpuppetry in the archived discussion. It appears to be on the rise, with a new user named User:Agniveer099 editing the articles 'Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh' and 'Draft:Gajapati invasion of Bidar.' Additionally, another new user, User:Al khawarizmi.313, has been created. Remarkably, both accounts have edited in support of User:Sudsahab, previously associated with the account User:Umarrizwan.ansari. Notably, Al khawarizmi.313 restored Sudsahab's revision in Maratha invasions of Bengal, while Agniveer099 removed comments from the Draft article created by Sudsahab. What's intriguing is that both these users joined Wikipedia just a few hours ago! Imperial^[AFCND] 13:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another brand new user; User:Malik10001. Joined few minutes ago. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user to note is User:Woason. While I'm not casting suspicion on every newly created user, it's perplexing that they all follow a similar pattern and seem to align with a common objective. Additionally, I'm surprised by how these recently created users gain access to draft articles, especially ones that are newly created.Imperial^[AFCND] 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've never seen so many new users appearing at the same time editing the same articles, I'll see what I can do, not sure if it's time for WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them aren't editing the same article, yet their editing patterns imply a shared objective. Considering that all of them are newly created, suspicions are increasing. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's WP:ANI time, I'll create a thread. If you have more evidence, please post it here so I can include it in my ANI report. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like you said at the sockpuppet investigation of Jonharojjashi, the user who changed account (Umarrizwan.ansari and Sudsahab) also adds "Decisive" often on the battle articles they created. It is evident from the revisions [2], [3] and [4]. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's going to take a bit of time to make the report due to so many users involved, I'll see if I can get it done today. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new thing too. A user, who have a history of editing Kalinga related articles have randomly came and started defending Sudsahab in the article Draft:Gajapati invasion of Bidar. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've come across a significant lead. Upon reviewing conversation between User:Shakib ul Hassan and User:Magadhan3933, I discovered an Instagram page named "@manik.edits_" After examining the profile and following list, it became apparent that there's a sizable group on Instagram engaged in historical debates. I suspect they might have coordinated efforts through Instagram groups, posing a potential challenge. This isn't a minor issue; I've identified thousands of such accounts using offensive language to describe individuals. I encourage you to investigate for a better understanding of the gravity of the situation. Their disputes predominantly revolve around religion, ethnicity, country, and regions, suggesting that merely addressing socks and meatpuppets may not suffice. They could recruit individuals passionate about promoting their historical backgrounds without hindrance.

Additionally, while scrutinizing one of the articles recently created (Siege of Etawah (1770)) by User:Sudsahab, I observed it relies on WP:SYNTH. Despite requesting him to quote the specific parts used, he consistently failed to do so. This raises suspicions about source manipulation in their articles.

Surprisingly, the reviewers aren't thoroughly checking articles during AFC submissions, and these editors have now begun creating articles directly in the mainspace. User:Asilvering previously advised against inventing names for battles not mentioned by historians. However, these editors persist in creating articles such as the Battle of "X" on a regular basis. I used to do so myself, but following Asilvering's guidance, I've refrained from creating articles merely based on the location of an event.Imperial^[AFCND] 10:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did make a ANI report, just not a big one. I'll put the big one on hold for now. Something is definitely off, and I'll keep watch. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

HistoryofIran,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mann Mann, thank you very much and likewise. Hope everything is well. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

The problem editing continued on the article Azerbaijani nationalism, I reported Aruturo Van Kaigan Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aruturo Van Kaigan reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: ).

I mentioned that I think this editor is NOTHERE, didn't want to speak for you, but if you have an opinion...

Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you pretty much mentioned everything I would have said, appreciate it. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HistoryofIran, its once again a pleasure to talk to you. I couldn't help but notice that there have been recent edits made to the Battle of Karnal regarding someone called "Balkishan", this has been done a by a user who's recently written an article on the very same topic, however the user has only provided two sources. The problem arises that one of those sources is in Hindi and the other one is written by an independent writer and cannot be considered WP:RS. I'm currently looking to find more information on this topic, and don't seem to be making much progress, but just wanted to clarify if these edits could be removed due to the questionable information added along with it that does not seem to have reliable sources Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salman Cooper Mapping, thanks and likewise. Is the edit I just reverted what you're referring to? It looked strangely written (copy-pasted?) and used questionable citations [5] HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that was the one. I've searched for any considerable and reliable sources regarding this but nothing was to be found, thanks for the revert. Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi HistoryofIran! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have added an opinion that exists in Arab history. What right do you have to remove it? Mohannd062 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit summary. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran You can check this user

Historianfox [6] seems to be a new sock of User:Pentapotamianist and PakistanHistorian as you're an expert to judge behavior similarities about this sock network.? They both made edits at Gurjar clans and the new sock moved the page to the wrong title because all the list linked to Gurjar clans is only talked about clans, not any tribes, so I don't know why he moved without any discussion.? If you have spare time, please keep an eye on this sock. Also see this Scheditia sock both seemed to be one person and must be Sock of PakistanHistorian there edits are mostly about Punjabi or similar languages and removing or adding some text on Gurjar related pages, making and redirecting of Gurjar related pages without any discussion.103.249.115.223 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think Historianfox has any connection here based on their edits (also, if they did they would likely have been caught in the Checkuser in the recent SPIs of PakistanHistorian). But the other user did tingle my spidersenses, I've filed an SPI [7]. Thanks for the help. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran, But user name Historianfox is also pretty similar; it will become clearer in the coming days. Thank you, by the way, for your prompt response.103.249.115.223 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran, Kindly Open a SPI and examine the behavior analysis because []Uzer:LingoSouthAsia]] is undoubtedly a sock of Blocked master User:Muhafiz-e-Pakistan even few months ago another sock (User:Cyber.Eyes.2005) of Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was blocked these sockfarms have large interest in topics like Hindko language, Punjabi language, Seraiki language, Balti people, Shina people, Dardic language, Pahari language etc. here is the link for examine their sock activities.103.191.122.141 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just checked the EIA and compared the diffs, but I don't think they're the same person, due to the pretty big difference between their English skills and personality. They just happen to share an interest in some articles, nothing unusual (and Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was interested in a wider range of topics). HistoryofIran (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bahram Mirza 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bahram Mirza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bahram Mirza for comments about the article, and Talk:Bahram Mirza/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw you reverted Kurdishtribes at Kalhor (tribe). They've removed references and made edits to the article, and I don't know enough about the subject to deem their contributions constructive or not. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw after refreshing the page that you reverted it. After checking some new pages, though, it seems they've created the page Talk:Kalhure (tribe). Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I find their edits a bit bizarre. "Kalhure" is not even remotely close to WP:COMMON NAME and doesn't even sound like a English transliteration (sounds German), and they randomly altered sourced info and even a direct quote. They didn't even bother to use capital letter in some instances either. I've redirected Talk:Kalhure (tribe), thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blndg4 on the group of editors there. Are they potentially related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syntaktis123? Saw that pop up when reviewing page history for anything further back. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it's Syntaktis123, their focus was more or less only on certain Iranian and Iraqi cities in the Kurdistan region. And the majority of the times they socked was just to spite other editors. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got me block on saraiki language page over night. Basically you proved me right that you do not have valid sources or linguistic knowlege on any of Language. You had some personal grudge against sock user PakistanHistorian and you carried that grudge against a good professional contributor like me. WP is just a game for you where you come to report other users. OK be happy with wrong information display on that page. We can not correct every unproductive on this world. Let them be what they are. LingoSouthAsia (talk) LingoSouthAsia (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]