User talk:Beylarbey

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Mir Jumla II, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable information. Beylarbey (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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; read about 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. Somajyoti ✉ 08:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Your own edit history says the radical idea that you are trying to spread. Trying to manipulate Wikipedia, vandalise and removing truths. Covering them with misinformations. Look at yourself first. Beylarbey (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Prothom Alo, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 16:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beylarbey! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sack of Somnath several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Sack of Somnath, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Hionsa (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Shahbag protest, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Daily Star, Independent Television and International Crimes Tribunal. 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) 07:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The article Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam describes an invasion, not a conquest. Please do not change it. The article name itself is about an invasion. Even during the occupation of the capital, Mir Jumla had no control of Assam; and control was non-existent after he left Assam. The Koch king recovered his capital in 1662 itself. Chaipau (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Please avoid engaging in an edit war over minor issues. I have reverted your edit. What is the point of removing content from the beginning and then adding the same thing at the end? Also, there's no need to add excessive wikilinks. The 2013 Shapla Square protests are already linked through the Siege of Dhaka article, and the Commissions have already been wikilinked multiple times.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Here you removed the failed verification tag without addressing the issue. Please look WP:TEMPREMOVE on when you can remove maintenance tags. Chaipau (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Sack of Somnath, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Hionsa (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Scroll through the pages and then judge what is disruptive and what's not. Thanks. Beylarbey (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Beylarbey! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kherua Mosque, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Kherua_Mosque, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Kherua Mosque and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Kherua Mosque, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kherua Mosque. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Kherua Mosque with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Kherua Mosque saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Beylarbey (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Chaipau (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your efforts, I have a question about a person named Abul Qasim Simjuri that you mention in your articles. Was he closely related to Abu Ali Simjuri?تبرستانی (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Abu'l Qasim Simjuri is the brother of Abu Ali Simjuri. Check — The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna (1931), p. 32 Beylarbey (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can you add Mughal Central Asia campaign and Siege of Nagpur to the history section of Army of the Mughal Empire?

Thanks before 118.136.204.158 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

hello again. Could you help more? Please insert Battle of Tilpat (1669) just under the Gokula Singh rebellion 118.136.204.158 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beylarbey. Thank you for your work on Gumti Darwaza. Another editor, Bakhtar40, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Need more citations.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bakhtar40}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Kara-Khanid invasion of Khorasan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. I understand that there may have been some confusion about the source's copyright status, given its publication by a UN agency. However, the publishers clearly assert copyright on the second page, and I cannot find any provision online for releasing UNESCO publications into the public domain. Please be more careful going forward. Thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Two quick things: articles older than 90 days can't be draftified, and the article clearly has sources that it cites, those short citations just lack certain information about said sources. Remsense 🌈 论 14:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The short citations does not link to any works. They don't target the corresponding books or any sources because there is no sources. So how are readers going to verify information? Just last name and year is not enough for general readers. Beylarbey (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghaznavid campaigns in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chamundaraja.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Third Maratha invasion of Bengal. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and require WP:RS, WP:IS for WP:V and refer to WP:REFB on how to cite sources properly. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma 论 07:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Alivardi Khan when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beylarbey. Thank you for your work on Siege of Barabati (1745). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this article about the Marathas! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The article Battle of the Indus (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Battle of Kakadadaha has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Instead of giving both you and Hejkl 3rr warnings.....Since both you and Hejkl are edit warring and both of you could possibly be blocked, I'll just ask both of you to take your concerns to the article talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That user Hejkl does not understand the basic of editing. He is constantly disrupting that page since for like months. You can scroll back to earlier edit history and see his naive behaviour. I have dropped message in his talk page multiple times but he doesn't understand a single thing. Beylarbey (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Mughal–Maratha conflicts has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Beylarbey,

You should not have moved the conflict article to Draft space as it was not recently created (no older than 90 days). Please read our guidelines on when it is appropriate to draftify an article and when it is not at WP:DRAFTIFY. It's not a matter of whether or not you think an article should be moved to Draft space so please follow our guide. If you have questions about these guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. Editors should generally avoid moving an article to draftspace if it was created more than 90 days ago. The age is counted from the initial creation in the mainspace, not the time it was moved from the draftspace. In this case the article was moved to main space less than a month ago. See. The draft was created more than 90 days ago. Hence no issues. Beylarbey (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahmud of Ghazni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EIC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The page Draft:Ghaznavid campaign of Ghur has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from copied/too closely paraphrased from https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.80590/2015.80590.The-Life-And-Times-Of-Sultan-Mahmud-Of-Ghazna_djvu.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been 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.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with other attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. Black statue (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

What?

“A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content”

I have never created any biography of living person. Beylarbey (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal conquest of Bengal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahmudabad was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am messaging you regarding the siege of Bhatiya wiki page. You have listed the ruler Biji Rai as a Rajput, but some of the sources I have read on Google books list the King as a Khukhrain Khatri. Thanks IndianHistorianMan647582 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Mention your sources. My article is sourced. Beylarbey (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Beylarbey. Thank you for your work on Tughlaq conquest of Bengal. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Ref 1 doesn't have a bib entry and Jackson 2003 isn't used. Can that go in a Further Reading section.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 16:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Beylarbey. Thank you for your work on Battle of Rani Sarai. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Another great article. I'm impressed although its seems to be quite an odd references format. I see points to the citation entry on internet archive or gbooks but has a bib entry. Kind of works I suppose, but does it actually 3 or 4 references per citation block. For example Ref 5 had 4 entries, Ref 5 has 4 entries. Does it really need them all? What purpose does it serve to have so many when the recommendation is 1 per sentence?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 17:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. 1 per sentence is enough but the numerical strength of the forces are sometimes disputed. Just to make sure that there is no confusion for the readers I have added 4 different sources in ref 5 with quotes. The entire article is based on primarily 4 different authors and the historiography is same. That's why I added 3-4 citations per block instead of 1 since they are almost same and also satisfies notability guideline. Beylarbey (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal conquest of Bengal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faridpur was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cooch Behar State, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to clarify my edit on Siege of Bhatiya. While I didn't add the KIA template, I did add "|Suicide" inside it. I've now checked and the reason was because I was not aware that Template:Suicide was updated in December to now have a symbol, as before it used to be a sidebar. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Prakashs27 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)