User talk:WareWolf665

Hi WareWolf665! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks WareWolf665 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 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.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks WareWolf665 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits 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. This is a standard message to inform you that 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 is a designated contentious topic.

Additionally, editors must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Ixudi (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ilm-ud-din. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

He was born in Punjab hence it would be better to specify his region rather than a general term of "Indian". Kindly cite the specific clause within WP:ETHNICITY, yes I will also cite my sources soon. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That edit was a clear violation of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:ETHNICITY. We simply do not cite the ethnicity in bio ledes (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr.), in your case the bio deals with a blasphemy case which hasn't any bearing on the notability for the person concerned. So even if sources state the ethnicity of the person in question its WP:DUEness is unlikely to be established.

You have also been informed that South Asia is a contentious topic twice above, including a second notice above noting: "Additionally, editors must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: ... (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal."

So you shouldn't be editing in for ethnic groups as such at enwiki in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. WareWolf665 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Abū al-Faẓl ʿAllāmī (16th century) in his work Work: Āʾīn-i-Akbarī He clearly records the Sadāt-e-Barha as descendants of Sayyid Ḥusain bin Zayd, tracing their lineage to Imam Zayn-ul-ʿĀbidīn, the great-grandson of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Niẓām-ud-Dīn Aḥmad (16th century) Work: Ṭabaqāt-i-Akbarī Mentions the Sadāt of Barha as an ancient Sayyid clan settled in the Doab region. Confirms their Arab-Hashemi descent and prominence before Akbar’s reign. ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit these pages as they fall under WP:CT/SA, otherwise you will be reported and possibly banned from editing further. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

am not allowed to edit these pages, but you are not mentioning what 14th- and 16th-century scholars thought. You are directly jumping to what 21st-century American scholars think about Sadat-e-Bahrah. They claimed to be Sayyids, and it was generally accepted by the scholars of their contemporary times."What Indian scholars think is more relevant than what an American scholar thinks in this regard ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

They were Punjabi Muslims belonging to the Sadaat-e-Bara clan of the Barha dynasty, who claimed to be Sayyids or the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Their claim was generally not accepted, and they were said to be descendants of peasants from Punjab who migrated to the eastern part of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh

Can you please provide a reference? Punjabi Muslims were Jats who lost a war against the Sayyid-e-Bahra, and even the Gazetteer confirms this. The Jats themselves knew about them. I don’t know what your basis is for writing these things without proper evidence." ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The references have been linked on the page, you can click on the blue hyperlinks next to each sentence to access them. Please also give WP:PERSONAL a read. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You should give WP:PRIMARY a read in this regard. Generally, we do not directly cite primary sources like Ain-i-Akbari and contemporary historians but secondary sources from modern historians instead who have analyzed and interpreted the primary accounts. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If primary sources are not suitable, then we also have sources from before the Mughal regime that talk about Sayyids in Punjab. What do you have to say about that? This is not a scientific discussion that can simply be disproven. In earlier times, testimony was considered important. If primary sources are considered incorrect, then one could even claim that these people never existed. An American historian cannot claim something about a family that existed in India when they had no direct knowledge of it. The American scholar says that Sayyids didn’t exist during that time. Well, Arabs entered Punjab in the 7th century—for example, Muhammad bin Qasim. For your kind information, you have not provided any solid evidence from an eyewitness. Perhaps the American historian has a time machine, which led him to reject the eyewitness accounts and the traditionalists of those times ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, however, I am not the one making these policies. As Wikipedians, we have to abide by them whether we like it or not.

I suggest you to read the WPs first before editing pages and commenting unnecessarily on my talk page. Otherwise, I will have to report you for WP:IDHT. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Abiding by the rules is not the mentality of a werewolf 😂 ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Although what you wrote is more of a fringe theory than the popular belief, you claim I am disrupting the edit. ~2025-44125-44 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

you are the one not following the policies of wikipedia.Wikipedia says to cite the sources.

You have not cited any source but a statement of an american historian. ~2025-44151-24 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@WareWolf665: could you please explain why the latest edits in Nasrat Shah's page about his Assamese campaigns, which were backed up by credible sources, were removed? ~2026-10094-36 (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:CT/IMH. You, as an IP, cannot edit anything relating to the military history of the subcontinent. Thanks and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that this restriction also applies to you as a non-extended confirmed user. You should let someone with the right user groups handle this, or create an edit request on the article's talk page submit a quick enforcement request on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to request that it be removed. Enforcing the restriction is not an allowed exception for non-extended confirmed users to edit within ARBECR areas. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Noted with regards. I'd appreciate it if you could kindly cite the policy clause which says that specifically. WareWolf665 (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's in WP:ARBECR, I strongly suggest you read that section fully. The restriction on all edits is "broadly construed", meaning that if there is reasonable doubt that a certain edit would go against this restriction, except for explicit provisions and exceptions laid out in ARBECR, it's usually taken to mean that it does. If in doubt, don't do it, and seek clarification first. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. English is not my first language so I misinterpreted that part. In that case, could you kindly revert this latest edit on the page? The IP is quite insistent on adding contentious information from non-WP:HISTRS and non-WP:AGEMATTERS compliant sources. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done, and I've also alerted the account to the CT procedure. Next time for something that needs reverting in an ARBECR topic area, consider a quick enforcement request on WP:AE, as this is something that can be handled quickly by a single admin. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at mirani. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank Mir yosuf (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You are the one adding unsourced information and POV pushing. You cannot even add or remove anything from those pages as per WP:CT/CASTE as you are a new account. I have also reverted the rest of your edits for the former reason. WareWolf665 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

my all info added is sourced as you can see not unsourced. Mir yosuf (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your sources were of poor quality. Two of them didn't meet WP:AGEMATTERS requirement and none were reliable. You also cannot edit any caste-related pages per WP:CT/CASTE. Any more attempts to edit such pages can get you reported and possibly blocked from editing. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

does not mean to remove old sources and replace them with nothing, as done here. AGEMATTERS comes into play when weighing newer sources vs older sources, thus the be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought we could not use sources older than 100 years on Wikipedia? WareWolf665 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Where did you read that? Certainly not at WP:AGEMATTERS which says nothing of the sort. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I read that in some discussion and though it was policy. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

why are you removing my sourced edits? like done here here.

it doest fall in Wikipedia:RAJ

exact words

''Jadeja Shri Viblioji was the founder of House of Rajkot. Jam Sataji of Nawanagar who died in 1608 A. D. had three sons Ajoji, Jasaji and Vibhaji. Ajaji who was slain in the battle known as “Bhucherinori ” had two sons Lakhaji and Vibhaji. Opinion is divided as to which of these two Vibhajis was the founder of the Rajkot House. One version maintains that Vibhaji, the son of Jam Sataji, was the founder. Another version associates with this circumstance the name of Vibhaji, the grandson of Jam Sataji.''

its just simple history as written in the book its not about caste or anything Mir yosuf (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Your other edits were regarding caste which I have reverted. For this one, it is generally not preferred to cite Raj-era sources for genealogies so I will readd the info with a "citation needed" tag. If you have a reliable secondary source from post-1947 era, do add it. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

ok Mir yosuf (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, you are not allowed to revert edits in WP:ARBECR topic areas, which includes WP:CT/CASTE. Please stop. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I reverted them on the basis of WP:RAJ which is an essay, not on the basis of WP:CT/CASTE. Infact, I haven't done so since the first warning, you can check my edit summaries. Regards. Nevermind, I realized it's the same thing. I'm just going to avoid editing on South Asian pages for now. Thanks for the warning. WareWolf665 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

please stop vandlising my sourced edits without any reason Mir yosuf (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

the layyah gazzater is still on their webiste i have updated the link and i have added one more source from an old gazzater and one from sindh University press

This should be enough to prove the event happened Mir yosuf (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@WareWolf665 Hey Hindko is considered a language by some and a dialect by others, so we must remain neutral. Previously, it was listed as the 'Hindko language' on the Hindkowans page, but an editor removed it. That account is now blocked. I added the information back, but it was removed again. We must maintain a neutral point of view; that is why I am restoring it Sher-e-PAKISTANI (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's article states "Hindko... is a cover term for a diverse group of Lahnda dialects...". The dialect term is more appropriate to be used on other pages. If you have a problem with that, take it to the talk page. WareWolf665 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s why l put Hindko language of Lahnda. Hindko is separate language in censes of Pakistan that’s why we have to be neutral Sher-e-PAKISTANI (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)