Talk:Samma dynasty

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samma dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023164900/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hormuz to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hormuz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606120407/https://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1 to http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Samma were Kshatriya

According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Sammas were originally Lohana kshatriya. Reference: History of mediaeval Hindu India, page no. 189[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.59.20 (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Samma Dynasty is Muslim rajput Dynasty Sandhi Muslim (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Before the Arab invasion, the Samma people ruled under King Agham Lohana. So stop spreading false history. Read the Chachnama for detailed information. Also, study H.M. Elliot and C.V. Vaidya to understand the perspectives of historians. ~2026-19066-53 (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorrectly added lohana there without any citation

"The Sammas, a Lohana tribe, gained control of Thatta in the southern Sindh from the Sumras around 1335, and expanded their territory northward to Bhakkar and beyond.."

No citation reference has been provided RS6784 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Samma are not Lohana tribe 2409:4041:2E16:67E7:0:0:5B8B:2409 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interesting Geek (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021 (2)

Samma is originally Kshatriya not Lohana tribe 2409:4041:2E16:67E7:0:0:5B8B:2409 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interesting Geek (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Origin and Establishment

According to Chachnama, Samma was a branch of Lohana tribe. Ala al-Din Khiljl (1296-1316) mounted a number of campaigns in the region battling the Sumra princes whose cycle of capitulation/rebellion could be charted exactly to the perceived military stress on the metropole. Yet, the Delhi Sultans and their governor rarely resorted to invading Sumra held territories - relying, instead, on alliances with tribal elite and local power struggles. Against the Sumras, Khiljl advanced the cause of the Lohana tribe of Samma. The conflict guaranteed a rolling supply of princes and tribal chiefs wanting alliances with the center. The tussle for dominance between the Sumras and the Samma lasted until the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351- 1388), when the Jam emirs of Samma were finally able to end Sumra dominance, taking over lower Sindh.

@Interesting Geek: Please add this Section in article. I provide two reliable references. Thanks in advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.106.219 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Merge

All of these articles—Jam Unar, Jam Tamachi, Jam Raidhan, Jam Sanjar and Jam Nizamuddin II—are extraordinarily poor, ill-sourced, and mostly reproduced off (unreliable) century-old texts leveraging their PD status. In reality, information on these rulers are scarce and often non-existent — premodern Sindh did not have a vibrant literary culture. All that can be obtained stems out of fragmentary mentions in Mughal chronicles etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Nothing to gain by merging. If anything, let's improve these individual articles. @TrangaBellam: पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: + I am afraid suggesting a merge during one month without any advertissement (we usually post on project pages when no feedback) and "closing" all by yourself is not quite proper procedure, especially when you know your merge proposals have been regularly countered in other areas. I suggest you refrain from deleting content, unless you obtain real consensus. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Regularly countered by you, who has been noted to have a battleground mentality by at-least one other editor in the project discussion? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Please just follow proper procedure, you are not alone here. You need to obtain consensus, like it or not, that's how Wikipedia works. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have reopened the discussion since I do not recall advertising the discussion in projects.
  @Future participants: Pat has objected to my collapsing of these meta-comments; they are (now) irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's easy: you are not allowed to delete the Talk Page comments of other contributors , and then hiding their comments by collapsing them is strongly against etiquette . Your previous merge closure was quite borderline: one month without any advertissement and "closing" all by yourself. My point is that these articles may not be perfect (I am uninvolved in their creation and development), but they do have significant content, sometimes specific images (tombs), so it seems really extreme to want to merge these. Better to bring improvement to these articles about historical rulers. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, collapsing is regularly done and it is not against etiquette. The way out was to request me to re-open the discussion due to valid grievances; not sneak in a comment underneath a closed discussion.

I do not wish to continue this discussion; have the last word. Can you at-least agree to separate off this meta-discussion (excluding your oppose !vote) into a subsection, so that future participants are not put off by this bickering? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, please leave my comments here, do not "separate them off".... Also please do not WP:CANVASS when advertising a Merge Request : just posting on the relevant project pages is sufficient, and more neutral. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, in good part because this is the province of WP:Pakistan and I'm not sure they've been informed. Pinging @Mar4d, Saqib, Nadirali, and Smsarmad: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

PS And Thatta is world famous, and an important part of the History of Pakistan (I remember including it in the lead long ago; I hope it is still there). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not proposed for Thatta (or the Necropolis) to be merged? Nadirali is banned by the community and Smsarmad has not edited since 2019 - probably unwise to wait for their response. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Some of the Jams are buried in Thatta which is a UNESCO WHS and receives attention. So, it is better to wait for the sources to pay them more attention individually. As long as the articles are reasonably well-written they should be kept. If they are not, then even merger is not necessarily the best solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because Wikipedia is a work in progress and merging isn't a catch-all solution, just because an article is a WP:STUB or hasn't been fully developed. Merging Jam Nizamuddin II is a ridiculous idea. Mar4d (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The only information about Jam Nizamuddin II in the article — after a pruning of unreliable sources — is about his tomb! You need to show that scholars treated individual rulers as worthy subjects of dicussion outside of a perspective that centers on the dynasty and/or the necropolis. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Urdu-Speaking domination on the page.

Once again the illict-imperial Urdu Speakings have restored the page with Urdu to meet their own audiences when they don't realize that Urdu Speaking didn't exist in Sindh till 1947 and that Samma dynasty was one of the greatest Sindhi dynasties ever and now that you guys want to ruin it for your own "Pakistan" or holy land you guys have done the changing of it removing the rights of Native Sindhis from the page.

I ask once again for why? you cannot Erase Sindhi language, history and nation from root doing so will be sured that Karama will pay back to you. Jeay Sindh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NameIsShaheer (talk • contribs) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption

@CrashLandingNew I have already mentioned in the edit summary that in the academic field, government sources are not to be used. Also, reliable academic references are to be cited, not news papers, which seldom have facts verified.

Also, I'm warning you, if you keep reverting and accussing me of vandalism, you will be reported. You have just come from a week long block for edit warring, next block will be indefinite. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop using a threatening tone and stop stalking my contribution history please.

Coming to the topic, stop doing blanket removal of sources. You removed them without any discussion. It appears you want all the mention of Samma's Rajput origin to be removed. A clear case of POV pushing CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Jats and Lohana are different castes

@Sutyarashi Lohanas and Jats are different caste. This is academic reference. Read footnote 151, I request admin to correct it in main page and remove Jat word from the main article. 49.43.33.176 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that's what André Wink reference states. If you have any objection over it, you can take it to WP:RSN. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Attempts at Persianization

This attempt at Persianization of the article without any reliable sourcing is unacceptable. The logic with which this is being implemented is also flawed. This was explained in detail to the same user Veritasphere here before as well. I recommend reading the linked previous explanation.

The name addition is clearly unsourced, but in addition to that, the user inserting the refs to justify his additions are not reliable at all for such significant matters.

1. This ref is not reliable for this addition. The editor is not a historian. He graduated in Political Science, and Law. Not history. The journal does not appear to be reviewed by any Academic authority as well.

2. This ref is also not reliable for this addition. The page cited is unreferenced, and the text is from the 'miscellaneous' section of the book. There are neither any footnotes nor references for the claim in the cited ref.

I am reverting your additions. You may modify the article to include your undisputed changes. Kindly give this a thorough read before deciding to revert again. Sir Calculus (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Sir Calculus:,

Thank you for your detailed note. However, I must express strong disagreement with your outright dismissal of M. H. Panhwar as an unreliable source.

Ajīb! M. H. Panhwar was a recognized Pakistani historian, geographer, and bibliographer with numerous publications to his name especially on Sindh's historical, cultural, and geographical heritage. His scholarly work is frequently cited in South Asian academic discourse. To label him unreliable simply because he held degrees in Political Science and Law, and not specifically in "History", sets an unnecessarily narrow precedent. Many historians across the globe are multidisciplinary in training.

Furthermore, the journal in which the referenced article appears is affiliated with a reputable local research institution and is part of multiple academic citation databases. If you have concrete evidence to establish that it is not peer-reviewed or academically valid, you're welcome to present it but a blanket dismissal without substantiation is unhelpful.

Regarding the second reference, it is indeed from a section labeled "Miscellaneous," but that does not automatically disqualify its content. If there is an issue with lack of inline citations, the appropriate course is to flag it as "citation needed" or open a discussion, not to remove historical data unilaterally. A more collaborative approach is expected, especially when the data is not fabricated and originates from published materials.

Lastly, I must emphasize that if you continue to revert edits without consensus or insist on your personal judgment overriding multiple sources, I will have no choice but to escalate this through proper dispute resolution channels. You are welcome to open a discussion at the article's Talk page or WP:RSN if needed, but unilateral reverts are contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing.

Regards, Veritasphere (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus: Ada!

Moreover, Ghulam Muhammad Lakho is not a name to be taken lightly either. He was a noted historian and intellectual voice in Sindh's academic landscape. His contributions to historiography, especially on the cultural and political heritage of Sindh, have been widely acknowledged. A detailed profile of his intellectual legacy has been published by The Friday Times in March 2025, which can be accessed here 1, 2 (Encyclopedia Sindhiana) Veritasphere (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Where's the consensus, Veritasphere? And you are filing a report! You should have waited for Sir Calculus instead of edit warring! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not the first instance. The same user has previously reverted my sourced edits on articles like Soomra dynasty and Kalhora dynasty. In the latter case, he removed a well-sourced statement about Persian being the official language of the Kalhora courts and replaced it with a citation from Humera Naz, whose academic credibility is unclear. This contradicts the work of Ghulam Muhammad Lakho, a respected historian, who clearly stated in published research and academic seminars that Persian was the court language of the Kalhoras:

Persian was the official language of Kalhoras’ courts

— Ghulam Muhammad Lakho, Dawn, 29 Jan 2006

Ironically, the same user cited Lakho as a reliable source in the Soomra dynasty article, yet dismisses his authority in the Kalhora dynasty case. Using different standards for sources like this is concerning and affects the neutrality of editing. Veritasphere (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The same user has previously reverted my sourced edits on articles like Soomra dynasty and Kalhora dynasty.

Kindly be careful with your wording, it can be interpreted as misleading the other user in this discussion.

With regards to the Soomra dynasty article: It was explained to you in the edit summary more than once. It was explained to you why your edit was reverted, and you were also told to see the article talk page, where I left a detailed text and explained why your edits were problematic.

With regards to the Kalhora dynasty article: You replaced the native text with Persian. It was explained to you why it is not an improvement. Your source was also removed, with the reason mentioned in the edit summary, it being WP:UGC.

You chose to completely leave that out and are here now mentioning my revert without any context. @Ekdalian, is it not problematic that he reported me to WP:AN3 without even forming a consensus on the talk page?

replaced it with a citation from Humera Naz, whose academic credibility is unclear

This is absurd. The academic credibility of Naz is very clear. Here is an excerpt from KLF 2025:

Humera Naz is currently Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Karachi. She has done her postdoc from CEIAS-EHESS, Paris. She has extensive teaching and research experience and has presented research papers at numerous conferences and seminars of national and international repute. Some of her research work has been published internationally and some are under process for publication as chapters in different books and newspapers including the daily Dawn. She is also a member of the Research Projects Review Committee of the HEC, the Editorial and Executive Boards of some HEC-recognized journals, and departmental review committees of different other Pakistani universities. She is the author of the recently published Sindh under the Mughals (OUP 2023), and her forthcoming book is Sindh under the Kalhoras (OUP 2023).

She has two books on the native Historiography of Sindh published by Oxford University Press.

This contradicts the work of Ghulam Muhammad Lakho

See, WP:AGEMATTERS.

Ghulam Muhammad Lakho, DAWN, 29 Jan 2006

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This is an article about a historical dynasty. It cannot be sourced from a newspaper.

Ironically, the same user cited Lakho

I cited it as a secondary ref, not the primary.

Using different standards for sources like this is concerning

I do not follow my own personal standards. I have undoubtedly been through some humbling experiences where I was taught about Wikipedia standards by senior editors here. Primarily, Sitush. Now, I follow this WP:PG. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I must express strong disagreement with your outright dismissal of M. H. Panhwar as an unreliable source.

This is an article about a historical dynasty. I am not dismissing him entirely. What you have attempted to do on multiple Sindh-related articles is Persianization. That is very significant. I will summarize it to you in simple terms, you cannot add a significant claim using a source which was published by an Agricultural Engineer who is not academically trained in Historiography. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Furthermore, the journal in which the referenced article appears is affiliated with a reputable local research institution

The article which was included in the journal was self-published, see WP:SPS, with no academic vetting. The journal itself has not been proven to be 'reputable' by you. It was launched post retirement by the editor himself, and he himself served as the editor in the journal with no academic training on History. He is a Political Science graduate. You cannot use that as a source for your significant claims.

Regarding the second reference, it is indeed from a section labeled "Miscellaneous," but that does not automatically disqualify its content

It does. It is completely unsourced and is not the main body of the book.

Ghulam Muhammad Lakho is not a name to be taken lightly either.... A detailed profile of his intellectual legacy has been published by The Friday Times in March 2025

It is a romanticized very personal cordial article as the author was a friend. It is not a formal review or even a 'detailed profile' as can be verified by anyone on Wikipedia.

which can be accessed here 2 (Encyclopedia Sindhiana)

Sorry, again, neither a formal academic review nor reliable. See criticism in this news story. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"It does. It is completely unsourced and is not the main body of the book."

r: @Sir Calculus: and What about Habibullah Siddiqui soucre? Stop pick and choose! Veritasphere (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

However, Naz is not considered a reliable source. Veritasphere (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Dawn is a reputable and responsible newspaper it is highly unlikely that they would report such information inaccurately. I will soon provide a direct citation from Ghulam Muhammad Lakho's published work. Once that is presented, I trust you will accept that Persian, and not Sindhi, was the administrative language under the Kalhora dynasty. Would you agree to that in principle, provided a reliable source is cited?

Also, what is your view on Habibullah Siddiqui's research regarding the Samma dynasty? Have you dismissed that too as unreliable? :) Veritasphere (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Dawn is neither academic nor a history newpaper. Regarding Lakho, I already mentioned to you WP:AGEMATTERS.

Have you dismissed that too as unreliable? :)

What are you even talking about?! Sir Calculus (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you literally not read anything I wrote above? Naz has two books published on the historiography of Sindh, by a reliable academic publishing house, Oxford! Sir Calculus (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember reverting any Habibullah ref. Show diff. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You're correct that the revert itself was made by another user. However, the concern is that you overlooked or disregarded the reference by Habibullah Siddiqui when discussing source reliability. Veritasphere (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Provide the diff for where I've done that. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus I've read your comments carefully and I do respect the effort and points you've made. However, from my perspective, it seems that you're dismissing a broad range of sources outright, and that’s where I'm struggling to understand the approach. Veritasphere (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you had read my comments then you would not have said "Naz is not considered a reliable source". Sir Calculus (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus: I did read your comments. My statement was not an absolute rejection of Naz as a source, but a reflection of the specific context and usage where her work lacked sufficient referencing. Reliability is not binary it depends on how a source is used and whether its claims are verifiable within the standards of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. In particular, Ghulam Muhammad Lakho, a well-established and widely respected historian, has explicitly stated that Persian was the official language during the Kalhora era, contrary to what Naz suggests. His statements are not only documented in published works but have also been echoed in academic seminars and credible newspapers such as Dawn. Disregarding such authoritative scholarship in favour of less substantiated or vague sources risks undermining the neutrality and historical integrity of the article. Veritasphere (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Very lengthy text and yet no proof to back that up. I already made clear to you that WP:AGEMATTERS, Lakho's work is older. Naz's work is recent. I already shared a text excerpt of her academic profile above. Manan Ahmed Asif, another modern historian has also praised her work on the Kalhora for which you are arguing. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus: Fair enough! I'm willing to acknowledge your point for now. But if in the future I come across a modern historian whose work provides a well-sourced and reliable perspective on this issue, I hope you'll be open to a constructive discussion then as well. Thank You Veritasphere (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus:, I hope you'll reconsider restoring the edit based on Habibullah Siddiqui’s reference. Veritasphere (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Samma were originally Lohanas

I don't understand why Wikipedia wants to hide certain information? I would like you to write here with clear references that the Samma were originally descendants of the Lohanas.

Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, a famous historian said, "The Chachnama also states that the Sammas were Lohanas." Reference: History of medieval Hindu India: the rise of Hindu kingdom, page no. 189 []

Lohana is the designation of a powerful tribe, which at that period, including the Samma and Lakha. Reference: Elliot, Henry M. (1867). The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period Vol. I - page - 362. Trubner & Co., London.

Ala al-Din Khilji (1296-1316) mounted a number of campaigns in the region battling the Sumra princes whose cycle of capitulation/rebellion could be charted exactly to the perceived military stress on the metropole. Yet, the Delhi Sultans and their governor rarely resorted to invading Sumra held territories - relying, instead, on alliances with tribal elite and local power struggles. Against the Sumras, Khiljl advanced the cause of the Lohana. The conflict guaranteed a rolling supply of princes and tribal chiefs wanting alliances with the center. The tussle for dominance between the Sumras and the Samma lasted until the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351- 1388), when the Jam emirs of Samma were finally able to end Sumra dominance, taking over lower Sindh. Reference: Ahmed, Manan (2008). The many histories of Muhammad b. Qasim: Narrating the Muslim conquest of Sindh - page - 99. The University of Chicago.

Samma Kshatriya is a branch of Lohana Kshatriya. Reference: History of India (ભારતનો ઇતિહાસ) પાષાણયુગથી ઘોરીના આક્રમણ સુધી, page no. 217 By Bhavin Kundaliya · 2022 ~2026-19066-53 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2026

According to historian Henry Miers Elliot, Lohana is the designation of a powerful tribe, which at that period included the Samma and Lakha.

Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, a famous historian, said, "The Chachnama also states that the Sammas were Lohanas."

Ala al-Din Khilji (1296-1316) mounted a number of campaigns in the region battling the Sumra princes whose cycle of capitulation/rebellion could be charted exactly to the perceived military stress on the metropole. Yet, the Delhi Sultans and their governor rarely resorted to invading Sumra held territories - relying, instead, on alliances with tribal elite and local power struggles. Against the Sumras, Khiljl advanced the cause of the Lohana. The conflict guaranteed a rolling supply of princes and tribal chiefs wanting alliances with the center. The tussle for dominance between the Sumras and the Samma lasted until the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351- 1388), when the Jam emirs of Samma were finally able to end Sumra dominance, taking over lower Sindh.

Samma Kshatriya is a branch of Lohana Kshatriya. ~2026-23101-15 (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The information I want to add is posted above along with its source, but you asked me for the source? I only want to add the information that Samma dynasty is a branch of Lohana, why is it not appearing on the main page? ~2026-23101-15 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't like the Wikipedia people's talk that even in history they only put their preferred version in front of people. It is proven from chachnama that the Samma dynasty is a branch of Lohana and this source is from before the Sammas came to power. Why do you ask questions pretending to be innocent even after giving the source to add such a small information? ~2026-23101-15 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)