This is an archive of past discussions with User:PadFoot2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi PadFoot2008, just wondering why you added the Use British English tag to Breakup of Spanish armed forces (1936) and changed the spelling within the article? This violates MOS:RETAIN which states "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." AusLondonder (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a consensus at INB (including admins), according to which location of various Indian states are arranged/written in the lead sentence. It is largely based on Britannica's definition. Let them stay that way. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from India into North India. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Your content was not sourced. It needs to be explicitly mentioned in a citation. Besides it doesn't need to be in the lead either. PadFoot200809:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is for Areal limit of the Empire/Confederacy (same source); Quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.
As I said before, it mentions the regions the Confederacy collected chauth from, not that the regions were a part of the Confederacy. And also please stop shouting. PadFoot200809:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I recently added something on my User Page and I am informing you this since we both have an ongoing dispute about some information in the Maratha Empire article. So plz see my user page link I have already provided and don't consider me inactive or satisfied with any comment of yours and others unless I state so. I need to have a time limit for Wikipedia as I have to concentrate on other things (especially my studies) which are equally important for me if not more. So plz wait for my responses I may not be replying so fast as I did before. I hope you will be okay with it. Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
You need to gain a popular consensus for your edit in the article talk page itself. You don't have my consensus as of now. PadFoot200805:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shankaraji Narayan Gandekar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rajaram.
Rather than creating a whole new set of categories, please consider going to WP:CFD or the speedy rename section of that page and request that the original categories be renamed. Then the category history can be preserved. And please do not try to move or rename categories yourself, it's best to let the CFD bot handle these operations. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Please do not edit war over categories. It is just as disruptive as other kinds of edit-warring. If you find an edit reverted, please discuss it on the article talk page, do not revert a revert. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!06:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, some of your recent page moves, such as moving Govindachandra (Gahadavala dynasty) to Govindachandra of Kannauj do not make sense. As the article on the Gahadavala dynasty mentions, the Gahadavala kings likely lived and ruled from Varanasi, not Kannauj (which was not even the contemporary name of that place). Almost all of Govindachandra's inscriptions are issued from Varanasi. Also, I am not sure which "convention of monarch related articles" are you referring to in your edit summaries. utcursch | talk23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Utcursch, most monarch articles use this convention. Just search "George I of" in Wikipedia itself, for example. Also there isn't much of a requirement to use contemporary names I think? And just see it's usage here in Google Books and ngrams [3][4][5]. Though I should mention here that the popular usage in reliable sources is "of Kanauj" not "of Kannauj", but given that the article has double 'n's in its title, I decided to keep the convention. PadFoot200802:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of monarchs of Malwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jayavarman.
I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Quadrilateral Security Dialogue have been undone because they did not appear constructive but disruptive, see Dravidian peoples and Indigenous peoples in India. If you think you can claim that Dravidian languages are associated with the hypothetical AASI component as well as to Andamanese without presenting any source, and in the same act of breath call the mainstream view that Dravidian spreaded outgoing from the IVC as Fringe and ignoring studies published in reputable journals, than you may be NOT HERE for this encyclopedia. This is not your personal playground. What you did at Indigenous peoples in India is even more questionable, if not outright vandalism. 45.129.86.225 (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urdu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muslims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
What is with all of these unnecessary page moves? I'm cleaning up about a dozen broken redirects from all of your terrible page moves. These were thoughtlessly done. If this happens again, I will remove your page mover right as you are causing damage with it rather than solving problems. LizRead!Talk!17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, I am extremely sorry and I apologise for all the inconveniences caused by me. This was my first round robin move, and I am going to make sure something like this never happens again. PadFoot (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
PadFoot, regarding your second set of moves, reverting from Afghan–Maratha War did not require a round-robin swap. You should have just moved it directly back. You can move a page to another title with a redirect so long as that redirect has never been edited. See WP:MOR (possible for all autoconfirmed editors) and WP:PMR#delete-redirect (possible for page movers).
Also, when a round-robin swap is necessary, you should suppress the redirect on all three moves. (WP:ROBIN "Note: Redirects are suppressed during all moves in the round-robin page move process.") As it is, you left an extra redirect at Draft:Move/Afghan–Maratha War that you should nominate for speedy deletion with {{db-g6|rationale=redirect created during a [[WP:ROBIN|round-robin]] swap that should have been suppressed per [[WP:PMRC#4]]}}.
Done, that's for telling me about this. I will try to make sure I don't do anything that might cause you or Liz to come to my talk page :) PadFoot (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@SilverLocust, I wasn't fully aware of MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, thanks for informing me about it. So, if a combining form like Franco- or Anglo- is used we use a hyphen, but if something like Polish or Swedish is used we use an en dash? That's interesting. I wonder why some nationalities don't have a combining form, while others do. PadFoot (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Sbaio, I made just one revert. How is that an edit war? Which Wikipedia policy says that one revert is an edit war (barring some projects where 1RR applies)? I think you might have considered my latest edit as a revert, which it wasn't. I simply changes 'S' → 's'. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at History of Hinduism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
A guy reverted my edit on Rana Sanga' article. I published a academic Atlas replacing Non Academic atlas while he reverted my edit and than I Again Reverted his edit, But I am sure that It will turn into a Edit-War. You can look the matter Dooblts (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your response to the Rana Sanga article. I would like you to review the Rajput articles as well, just as you did with the Maratha articles, selecting many for deletion. The situation is even worse with the Rajput articles. For example, the articles on the Battles of Idar and Rana Sanga's invasions of Gujarat, as well as many other articles associated with the rulers of Mewar, Marwar, and other Rajput kingdoms, are problematic. I have tagged some quality editors like you and Flemish Nietzsche to look into this matter. Dooblts (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
But not strong arguments. For example: a widely recognized albeit occupied state. So what? We know that. That's not an argument. in modern times this is the primary topic. Pure POV. All the supporters seemed to base their support on arguments like this or on pageviews, completely ignoring long-term significance. In addition, the problem, of course, with topics like Palestine is that they are politically sensitive and people may be arguing one or another POV for political reasons. This also needs to be taken into consideration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The page "The Maratha rebellion"
The page you have distorted,"the Maratha rebellion" didn't existed earlier. The Deccan wars was the conflict after the death of Shivaji but the maratha rebellion was started in 1644 under the leadership of Shivaji. Both are different topic, Deccan wars was fought under the reign of Sambhaji, not Shivaji. Sir, please restore and reconvert my page as it was earlier. Thank you. This is my unlogged account, I'm @historyenjoyer10, the creator of that page. 2409:408A:8D43:1FCB:ACFF:4A52:7A2A:7032 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Historyenjoyer10, please do not use an IP to edit Wikipedia, as that is sockpuppetry. Please use your Wikipedia account only. Anyways, in brief:
The term "Maratha Rebellion" as well other similar terms like Maratha Insurgency, Maratha Uprising, etc. most commonly refer to the Deccan wars.
The rebellions and various conquests under Shivaji were not a singular conflict. They were different and unrelated and thus shouldn't be presented as a singular conflict.
Shivaji's military conflicts are already covered in great detail in the main article Shivaji itself.
Hello, PadFoot2008. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac and @Celia Homeford, I apologise for the poor judgement on my part regarding the case of British Indian Army. I thought it would be a good idea to be consistent with the other army related articles like German Army (1935–1945), and since it was the common name as well, I decided to move it. I realise that move was a poor choice as I had not checked the talk page for prior RMs and thus was not aware at the time of the move that there had been a prior RM regarding this case 14 years ago which moved it from Indian Army (1895–1947) to British Indian Army. It was a mistake on my part and if I had been made aware I would have myself self-reverted my move. Also though I had been warned below not to move pages unilaterally, I had not actually moved any page unilaterally, and the warning was given by Liz after I moved Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) after this RM in the article talk page. None of my other moves have been reverted as well other than one error in case of an en dash, which I acknowledged and rectified. PadFoot (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a lot. I'll be more careful with any moves I make in the future and make sure to always check the talk pages (and the archives) for prior RMs and discussions. PadFoot (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to request the perm again, but you will need a convincing argument as to why the issues below, and the issues raised at your initial request, are no longer an issue. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are edit warring as well. Should say that you've started the edit war. And I've provided you a warning earlier as well. Also a "second warning"? In what? PadFoot (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Scroll through your talkpage, to see how many warnings you've received for edit-warring. When an addition is unsourced and controversial, you don't push through, you discuss. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!09:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The addition is not unsourced. As for the question of how many warnings I've received here — that's only 1 from Sbaio. Another one was issued in error I believe, as I had self-reverted which the warner thought to be a revert by mistake. Also my period in this talk page is every 3 months (unlike your once a week). Or else, the answer to the above question would've been none. PadFoot (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Padfoot2008, can you move the page Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to Pratihara dynasty or Imperial Pratiharas because Gujara Pratihara is not a common name used for this dynasty see WP:COMMONNAMENgram. Pratihara dynasty is the most used word for this dynasty followed by Imperial Pratiharas. Moreover, this title of the page Gurjara Pratihara triggers the recent Rajput-Gujjar conflict regarding the origin of Pratihara dynasty. Raged Pratihar (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't have page mover rights any more. Even if I had the rights, I still would not have performed the move as it would have been a unilateral move and very likely controversial. PadFoot (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Harassment
Can you stop stalking me ? diff. "Hindu kingdoms" is completely anachronistic for the Vedic period; your only point is to push back "Hinduism" as far back as you deem possible - in this case impossible. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!03:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, if I wanted to "push back Hinduism" as far as I wanted, I would've claimed (incorrectly) that Hinduism existed since the prehistoric era as some claim. But you would know that I've opposed tooth and nail any such claims that Hinduism existed prior to the Vedic period and the religions in prehistoric India were not even in the slightest "Hinduism". I am not "stalking or harassing" you, I am only keeping an eye on you for now as you are continuing to unilaterally push your own view and you appear to be determined to "pull back" Hinduism as near to the present time as possible. PadFoot (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not. I saw your recent edit to the page, and decided to see if you had made any other unilateral edit. PadFoot (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guhila dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahendra Singh.
