Hello Garudam. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your draftification of Arab conquest of Kaikan because the article was created in 2021. Article that are not new (within about 90 days of publishing) should not be draftified without prior consensus at Articles for deletion, per the result of this request for comments. In the future, please check that an article is new before moving it to the draft space. SilverLocust 💬 23:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well yeah I should have gone through that comment before boldly moving the article into draftspace. Happy editing. Garudam^Talk! 23:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garudam, I have reversed your draftifications of Seige of Mandalgarh, Seige of Ajmer and Siege of Kampili for the exact same reason given by @SilverLocust. Why did you draftify those articles when you had been advised by SilverLocust that there was community consensus that it shouldn't happen to articles greater than 90 days in age? TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Bhutala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turushka. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here[1]. It seems to be part of the reason JJB was topic banned. I am NOT saying you are wrong, just that I don't understand it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, Doug. And by JJB (JJP?), I guess you meant JingJongPascal? Correct me if I’m wrong. To put it briefly, the argument was about the removal of inline and AfD templates, which are some of the reasons they are now topic-banned. Garudam ^Talk! 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JJP. I don't understand the contradictory template. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Talk:List of wars involving Magadha#Gupta_Empire, I explained how scholars disagree on the Guptas' connection to Magadha. The contradictory template was added because it conflicted with the Origin of the Gupta dynasty. Garudam ^Talk! 15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug Weller talk 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't file reports at SPI free-form. Instead, follow the instructions at WP:SPI on filing a report. You made a complete mess of the above report, some of which I've fixed, but still isn't structurally correct. I'll let a clerk deal with it. Also, we don't do CUs of IPs, so don't request them (I removed that report completely), and we also don't block IPs unless they've edited recently. The two you included haven't edited in a long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garudam,

Please do not tag old drafts early for CSD G13. They aren't eligible for G13 until six months from the date and time of the last human edit. Now, we need to wait until May 30th before this draft is eligible for G13 again.

And pages aren't eligible for CSD G5 unless they have been created after the sockmaster has been blocked. It's complicated, it's about block evasion and you need to see who the sockmaster is, when they were blocked, when the sockpuppet account was created, when the draft or article was created, etc., it's best to let the SPI clerks or checkusers tag pages that are eligible for CSD G5.

Thank you for your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed the draftification as the article was older than 90 days in age when Garudam draftified it. It should be taken to AFD if editors believe it doesn't meet notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garudam, please do not add {{DEFAULTSORT}} to articles where it is not needed; from that template page, "It is not necessary to use DEFAULTSORT at all if the article or page should be alphabetized according to its title (which is true for most articles)". Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting 40% close phrasing from? Earwig's Copyvio Detector says 1% to me. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe do via copy vio run from this source or use turnitin, however I do get this result without even doing it. Garuda ^Talk! 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't showing for me until I added that source. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]