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.
You have been replacing a large number of Pakistan-related categories with India, which is disruptive and you should stop doing that. This is not what anachronistic means; these categories exist and for a good reason. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you perhaps tell me the "good reason"? Or could you show me the discussion which established the usage of this category? PadFoot (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Anachronistic would be calling these dynasties/states as Pakistani. Categorization them as being from the region now in Pakistan is not. Feel free to start RfD for them if you think they shouldn't exist. But for now, don't replace them with India-. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
It is perfectly anachronistic. Pakistan is not a region by the way, it is a country in South Asia formed in 1947, it has never been a "region". Using anachronistic terms on Wikipedia is certainly not good. On the other hand though, you can add Category:History of Pakistan as it is not anachronistic. PadFoot (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Also looked into your editing history, seems like you've spent a lot of your editing time trying to insert "(now in Pakistan)" to historical articles without consensus. PadFoot (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you just glossed over what I said – read my reply again. You've also been removing British from British India and making unsourced changes to lede while claiming Unsourced edit warring and POV pushing which is disruptive. Regarding that I added categories to some of these articles, these categories exist -- and if you think they shouldn't, you should try RfD instead of edit warring over them. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's then forget about the British stuff, which is a separate issue and I would not push it. Just because a category exists, that doesn't mean it is correct or that it gives you the right to add it to whatever article you feel like. For example, you could create a category called "Empire of abc" and start adding it to articles related to Iraq for whatever reason while stating that you added the category simply because it exists. I doubt you understand what "disruptive editing" is, and might I remind you that the same argument could apply to your additions of those anachronistic categories and adding unnecessary phrases such as "in modern day Pakistan" to leads of historical articles. PadFoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
“Pakistan is not a region by the way, it is a country in South Asia formed in 1947, it has never been a "region".
I don’t think that’s what he was trying to convey. He’s saying that the dynasty was centered in a region which is now located in the modern day state of Pakistan. Furthermore, India is also a country that was formed in 1947 so replacing the tags with “Indian” seems like a major contradiction if that’s your argument. I don’t have much stake in this conversation, but I just wanted to point out a couple of arguments I thought were flawed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any flaw in my argument. If you were well-versed in South Asian history, you would have known that "India/Indian" has been a term used in western usage to refer to South Asia since antiquity. The term is used by most modern historians to depict the historical region. On the other hand, the Indian Union, the Indian Republic, Pakistan and Bangladesh were indeed formed after 1947. PadFoot (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats…not my point? When did I say the term “Indian” never existed prior to 1947? I’m aware that the word “Indian” has been used centuries before the nations independence, but the modern conception of India is not the same as the one of the past. As RegentPark mentioned in the talk page of the Mughal empire, “that India doesn’t exist anymore”. Talk:Mughal Empire
I’m not even sure why you brought that up. Again, there is nothing wrong with this categorization. He’s not saying that the kingdom or dynasty was “Pakistani”. It just means means the kingdom or dynasty was from a region which is now within the borders of modern day Pakistan. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
You're repeating arguments now. Let me make it more clear here, that "India" is still used by most historians to refer to the region. We also use "Indian subcontinent" to make it more accurate and less confusing. Using "Pakistan" would be anachronistic as it would mean that it pertains to the modern day state, there is no other meaning or a historical meaning of the word, it has only one implication. PadFoot (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
“You’re repeating arguments now”. Well you didn’t really respond to the point about Pakistan until now.
“it has only one implication” that would only be true if he said that the emirate or kingdom was Pakistani, which we already have been over. Obviously, saying a dynasty was centered in a region that falls within the modern day borders of Pakistan, is not the same thing as referring to kingdom as “Pakistani”. These are two different meanings. Why do you think this implies the same thing? Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not arguing against the addition of things like "(in modern-day Pakistan)" to the lead, which your argument supports and it is fine by me. I am talking about the category "Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan", 'of' in English indicates possession, such as "German state" is same as "state of Germany" and "Canadian province" is same as "province of Canada". PadFoot (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts
Hi! @PadFoot2008 What do you think about the orgin of Pratihar Dynasty? I think that they were Rajputs as I have numerous sources to support my claim, several of them being are:
History and Culture of Indian People Volume 3 by R.C Majumdar in which he states that in Page no 153 [1]"The territory which today we call Rajputana was not known by this name in ancient times. In the tenth century A.D. the whole or at least, a large part of it was called Gurjaratra, an older and Sanskritised form of Gujarat. As we have seen above,1 the Gurjaras set up one or more principalities in Rajputana as early as the sixth century A.D., and Hiuen Tsang visited a kingdom in this area which he calls Ku-che-lo or Gurjara. It is probable, therefore, that the name Gurjaratra was applied to Rajputana as early as the sixth or seventh century A.D. But although we cannot trace the name of the locality as Rajputana at this early period, we find there already settled a number of clans or tribes who became famous as Rajputs in later days. These were the Pratiharas, the Guhilots, the Chapotkafas and the Chahamanas."
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (2006). Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues. Anthem. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-84331-132-4. The period between the seventh and the twelfth century witnessed gradual rise of a number of new royal-lineages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, which came to constitute a social-political category known as 'Rajput'. Some of the major lineages were the Pratiharas of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and adjacent areas, the Guhilas and Chahamanas of Rajasthan, the Chalukyas or Solankis of Gujarat and Rajasthan and the Paramaras of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan
India: A History by John Keay, Page no 153 "The subject is more than passing interest because Pratihars and their descendants are often numbered among those famous clans such as Rajputs, In centuries immediately precceding and following the Muslim Conquest of India, the Rajputs were destined to play often heroic and always pivotal rule."I am having plenty more sources aside of presented above of G.H Ojha, R.V Somani etc.
Hello @Rawn3012, I did actually express my thoughts at the talk page at an earlier discussion. I would say that the dynasty was indeed a Rajput dynasty. The misconception that it is of Gurjara origin arose from an inscription that was issued by another king (not the Pratiharas), who used the term "Gurjara-Pratihara" apart from which I don't think the term has ever been used. The king who issued the inscription probably referred to the region which the dynasty had ruled, not the Gurjara clan. PadFoot (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 I am thinking to open a Rfd related to it where it will be discussed in depth and more possible a consesus would also be reached. What do you think ?
Why do you want a WP:Redirects for Discussion (RfD)? I suppose you mean an RfC? Honestly, there was a discussion earlier, you can see it in the talk page of the article, but can open an RfC if you want. I'll express my opinion there as well. PadFoot (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Here we go again: edit-warring on the term "ancient Ginduism," this time on Kalasj people. Searle's West's is a generic encyclopedia, not a specialized author; "Fielding's the World's Most Dangerous Places" speaks for itself. Witzel, on the other hand, is an absolute authority, and says (italics Witzel) "an ancient, common substrate (TUITE 2000, cf. BENGTSON 1999, 2001, 2002). These must be separated from what may appear to be Vedic." Not even sure Vedic, but may; Witzel doesn't use the phrase "ancient Hinduism" at all. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan, West does use the term "ancient Hinduism". As mentioned in your note itself. No one uses your supposedly great "historical Vedic religion" btw. Also I've reverted twice, and you too have reverted twice. I need to revert more than three times to violate 3RR, and you too. PadFoot (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008: I intended to leave your talk page a moment ago, but I caught this. Both of you should take it to the talk page. This seems like a relevant enough discussion that it should take place there and so that, if it comes up again, the discussion will have been had in a place that's easy for someone to search for. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
You very much have, and this is not the only page where your behaviour of edit warring is evident – will see you at ANEW in a moment Sutyarashi (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to clarify with an admin if possible. Also, there's no other page where I've (possibly) violated 3RR. I didn't revert after your warning. PadFoot (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
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. Read the warning I left above. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sutyarashi, I am very much familiar with 3RR, and my behaviour clearly indicates that I do not intend to break it. After you told me that I was about to break 3RR, I stopped editting at once, and in this case too, though I do not think I've broken 3RR, I have still self-reverted. PadFoot (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
There is indeed a difference between edit warring and breaking 3RR. They may have the same intent, but one is a clear red line and another may be more ambiguous. I'm not going to make the effort via mobile to investigate this case those and will leave that to the reviewing admin since a report has been filed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maharaja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rai.
I was looking into some editors who've been blocked as sockpuppets this summer and this is an article that has been a target of POV edit-warring over castes. I noticed that you also have been editing this article and I'm hoping you can keep an eye on it and if edit-warring breaks out, please report it as a possible article that should be protected. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Looking at all of the warning messages you've received on your User talk page today, I'm not sure that I should have come to you for help when it looks like you have been accused of pushing a POV and edit-warring. But I'll leave here any way and hope that you are learning from the concerns posted on your talk page. We can all learn to become better editors. LizRead!Talk!01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Liz, I shall keep an eye. Yesterday was quite a stressful day for me certainly. I do not support or like edit warring, and prefer community consensus over it. As for Harsha, seems likes someone's trying to claim that he was a Jat — first time I am seeing that actually. I shall see to it. PadFoot (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Wait, but @Liz, you are an administrator, surely you can just protect the page yourself? You've seen the long term edit warring on the page. PadFoot (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Stop POV-pushing on articles
You have been disruptive on many South Asian related articles despite being advised by fellow contributors.
Using the term South Asia is perfectly fine for the concerned articles[1][2] and it is neutral, hence more appropriate. Study about the usage in the wiki Indian subcontinent as well to understand what I am talking about. Here is some text from that article: "Since the Partition of India, citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971) often perceive the use of the Indian subcontinent as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term". It also says the term is closely linked to the region's colonial heritage. So kindly restore the previous versions, at least on articles which are relevant to Pakistan as well. It is controversial and academics prefer South Asia instead.[3] It is also the only politically neutral term.[4] The references for the maps on the articles you have been disrupting also use this term. See, A Historical Atlas of South Asia. On Wikipedia, we have to maintain neutrality and stop reverting repeatedly when you have been addressed and advised. Read WP:PUSH. I see you have already been warned by another @contributor above. Kindly self-revert your disruption on the relevant articles. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sir Calculus, I do not take kindly to false allegations. Indian subcontinent is a neutral term, conventionally used in all India(n subcontinent)-related historical articles, which you are replacing with a modern political term South Asia, a term that denotes a collection of modern-day states in Asia. If you'd read any historical source, you'd see the predominant usage of 'India' to refer to the region now called South Asia. PadFoot (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
You are the one who changed the previous neutral versions of the article. Others have pointed that out above as well. I provided references to prove my point. You keep mentioning "not modern" in your edit summaries, but you keep forgetting that the term "Indian subcontinent" is modern too. And Wikipedia is not about what historical source "I" read. It is about consensus, modern academic scholarship, neutrality.. Other editors have addressed you above as well. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sir Calculus, it would be a good time to mention here that Indian subcontinent is certainly not modern, "subcontinent" is a word meaning a vast region similar to a "continent". Your argument is like saying that Europe is an ancient term, but "European continent" is a modern term, and "Deccan" is an old terminology but "Deccan peninsula" is a modern term. Also, what is not modern is and would be more accurate too is "India". But of course, you would not be wanting to mention that word, would you? Again, what is neutral is Indian subcontinent, what is not neutral is removing that. PadFoot (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, what is neutral is Indian subcontinent, what is not neutral is removing that
I see you missed the part where I added references to prove which term is neutral and not controversial, which word academics & political bodies too prefer. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Academics and political bodies prefer the term for the modern states, for which I do not disagree that it is neutral. But for the historical region, of course, India or Indian subcontinent is preferable. Also providing a couple of sources using that term doesn't show that the term is preferable for historical usage. PadFoot (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It is acceptable for the historical regions as well. Literally check the first Britannica ref. Providing references to prove my point shows what is preferred. You have not posted any references so far. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, @Sir Calculus, at least unlike you, I do not remove from my talk page any allegations against me, which you seem to do so as to make it appear that you have a completely clean track record. See here [2] removed an edit warring warning by @TrangaBellam, and the consequent discussions. Here you removed an editor mentioning that you remove such allegations from your talk page [3]. Certainly, not a sign that you want to be transparent with you editting. PadFoot (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I remove what is sorted. Regarding the first diff, I removed it because it was no longer relevant. I did not continue to make the change the user had a problem with, even though it was an academic ref supported by WP:RS. But you continue to not listen to others.
Regarding the second diff, I later added additional refs which you can see on that article. The issue was never brought up again.
Since you made allegations that I disrupt Wikipedia, I thought that it would be perhaps appropriate to do a bit of a background reveal of the one making those allegations. And the ones mentioned above are not the only ones where you have removed warnings, I could make an entire list off of the sheer amount of them. PadFoot (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It is true you reverted even after you were addressed and have a warning above from another user. From "today".
And the ones mentioned above are not the only ones where you have removed warnings, I could make an entire list off of the sheer amount of them
Are you trolling? Also I didn't remove any warning. It was a post notifying me put Ctopics/aware for IPA which I have already put on at the top of my page. Do you seriously have no idea the difference between a warning and a notification? PadFoot (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Never said you removed any warnings. I mentioned you have been warned by others and also addressed on edit summaries as well by users other than me as well. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I indeed have been, but I've never felt the need to hide that. Thy serve to prevent any mistakes I might make in future. PadFoot (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
How you choose to be reminded is your own personal preference. I myself prefer removing old issues which are sorted and move on. I have my memory to remind me. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, you have even been blocked but have removed all mentions of it from your talk page, this very clearly shows that you are here to only disrupt Wikipedia. The amount of censorship is killing me. PadFoot (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
No. I am not telling you to die. Stop putting words in my mouth. I replied to your comment about me. By "you can go off", I meant you can continue to write about me in the manner you did. Just hope some admin does not see it. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Then, I'm glad that you are not asking me to die. Also, what do admins have anything to do with me mentioning that you have been blocked? PadFoot (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, you have even been blocked but have removed all mentions of it from your talk page, this very clearly shows that you are here to only disrupt Wikipedia. The amount of censorship is killing me.
Because of this. It is offensive. Because instead of reaching a resolution you keep bringing up my past blocks/warnings which I already learned from and have since improved my contributions. You felt it was better to do that instead of addressing my present text. In which I talked about recent changes of yours, and recent warnings of yours regarding recent concerned changes which others too have mentioned to you before. I even added references to prove my point. Did not leave plain text. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Because you kept changing the past stable neutral versions of the concerned articles.
Anyway, regarding the sources you have mentioned:
The first one is about natural history. The author is a not a historian. He's a bio-chemist. Pranay Lal is a biochemist by training and works for a non-profit organisation on public health. He has been a caricaturist for newspapers, an animator for an adverstising agency and an environmental campaigner..
The second one is not reliable either. Here are quotes from a review published by De Gruyter.
but here we encounter the first problem. He is a teacher of history, not a research scholar. Not only has he done no independent research himself, but usually he does not refer to research work either. The bibliography is crowded with general works of history.
Problems arise in the details. Numerous small and sometimes not so small faults and errors show that ultimately Avari is not wholly competent to write a history of ancient India. Not only has he no knowledge of Sanskrit, but he has also failed to learn many basic facts of its literary history.
The volume is also apparently meant to be used as a textbook. But here's what the review says "A book like this should never be given to a student."[5]
Moving on to the third source, a review of the book by SageJournal suggests "Indian subcontinent" in the subtitle is misleading. Also, the link you sent directed me to the first source in your comment.
Conclusion: You need more to support your additions. My advice is we should try requesting a WP:3O, so this can develop instead of going in circles. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Do read WP:RS once. Just because one author doesn't like another author, that doesn't mean that the former is not considered RS. Also, I am not sure what you sought to prove by providing me a link to the Britannica article on South Asia in your very first comment. There is an article on the Indian subcontinent as well on Britannica [4]. Also, I am all for using the shortened form "India" instead of the lengthened form of "Indian subcontinent", that's what most sources use and prefer when talking about pre-1947 history (not post-1947 history where South Asia and Indian subcontinent is preferred to avoid confusion with the Indian Republic). PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I have read RS more than once. Here it is not a case of an author not liking another author. Prove it if you think that is the case. Academic reviews by respected publishing houses cannot be ignored especially if an academic proves that someone is not wholly competent to write a book on something. In this case, a topic within history. I provided a link to the Britannica article to prove to you that using South Asia for historical regions is perfectly fine. I am not going to argue again why "India" or "Indian subcontinent" is not a neutral term. I have already explained it in my first comment. An editor just minutes ago also let you know that the usage of South Asia is fine. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view & WP:IDHT. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Other editors commonly prefer and use Indian subcontinent, shown by the fact that of its large occurence in Wikipedia. Also per NPOV Indian subcontinent is better. Removing it is certainly a POV push, but I do not want to repeat arguments here. Also what I wanted to tell you that the sources were still RS, the reviews can't be ignored but they are of course still RS. PadFoot (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Other editors commonly prefer and use Indian subcontinent
Another editor just reminded you of a consensus below. The concerned articles never used the term. You included them yourself. They are not even very recent articles and they are relevant to Pakistan's history as well.
You started all this beginning few days ago and passed them off as "minor" lead changes. [5] Your "minor" edit got reverted by a user. Clearly not minor. Your "minor" change continues [6]. You justify the change by including "for non-specialist readers". What even is that? The original lead clearly included a link to the region. You continue again. [7] This time you say "slightly more detail". You again change the lead on another different article. [8] Again stating "minor". And then you change the cats on another article too just like you did in the previous ones. In this one you simply replaced "Pakistan" with "India".[9] It does not look well. Here's another article where you make significant changes which you consider "minor" and try to justify it by saying "readers from outside the subcontinent may not know where Sindh is". You know what's absurd again? The region is linked in the article. Any "non specialist reader" can click the colourful text.[10]. You repeat the same changes here too.[11] All linked articles are also relevant to Pakistan's history as the territory they are in is in Pakistan now. I explained thoroughly why neutrality should be maintained in my first comment in this discussion. But you keep refusing to address that. Restore the articles to their past neutral versions before the dispute while the discussion is still on and editors are commenting.
Also per NPOV Indian subcontinent is better. Removing it is certainly a POV push
Explain how the inclusion of a neutral term "South Asia" is POV push and you changing the past neutral versions is okay. This is starting to get WP:IDHT as you not only refuse to listen to what editors other than me have said so far regarding this matter. But also you have still not self-reverted back to past neutral versions before the dispute started. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I was just quickly checking my pings and don't have time to examine the situation right now, but I will say that I am familiar with the usage of "you can go off". I do believe that @Sir Calculus did not mean it the way that you initially took it @PadFoot2008. Just chiming in quick for that part of the discussion, because I understood what they meant on first read and it's fine if you're not familiar with the phrase, and I can understand how you reached the conclusion that you did about the phrase. Thought, perhaps next time, let's choose to ask "could you clarify what you mean when you say "you can go off"? I don't think you did anything wrong, but I do think when things get heated we need to try our best to WP:AGF, especially when it's toughest to do so. We all have the same goal :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Clearly in this context it does not mean I want you to die as you initially took it. While I already explained in what manner I used it. Here's a reference to assure you still. Check the synonyms for "go off".[6]Sir Calculus (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008: Perhaps you should consider starting a discussion with a clear and neutral POV or your sides as opposed to asking a specific editor to chime in. I think it's the fairest way to reach a consensus and the best opportunity for those uninvolved to weigh in on a subject matter they have an interest in. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Joshua, a "kind of consensus" is bit of an ambiguous terminology. Most history related articles use Indian subcontinent (or more often just India) on Wikipedia. PadFoot (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The ones you edited to add "Indian subcontinent" & cats did not use it before for a good reason. Also the ones in concern are articles which are also relevant to Pakistans history. I have explained very clearly in my first comment why your addition of the term on those articles is not maintaining WP:NPOV. I even proved that using South Asia is perfectly fine. But you still have not self-reverted and continue to have issues with its usage despite the concern of other editors. @Joshua Jonathan & @Sutyarashi are two editors other than me who have attempted to explain to you as well. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2024 (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. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to Mahasenagupta 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. — Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to know if this was intended, if you believe you've done enough paraphrasing, or if you are going to improve upon it. Otherwise, we should probably flag this for deletion.
Also, this is very interesting [12], is this auto-generated? How can I check the current version? I would be glad if you could teach me how to use it. PadFoot (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 Right here is the current version [13]. CopyPatrol is a tool that uses Turnitin and checks new diffs on Wikipedia for copyright violation, against Turnitin's database. Diffs with over 50% similarity then show up on the website for editors to either correct the violation or to flag it as a false positive. Highlighted text shows similarities between the article and the source. Feel free to check out the documentation: meta:CopyPatrol. To answer your question, yes this is auto-generated, and there is a lot of false positives.
To check the current version, you can use https://copyvios.toolforge.org and either have it search the web (which isn't always reliable) or compare it against a source you know might be problematic, which is what I did here. I think using it, we can see you've done enough paraphrasing.
@Win8x, No, it's fine. She just deleted those versions from the archives which were CR violations, and paraphrased the content, so all the content is still there. PadFoot (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tripartite Struggle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maru.
Marāṭhā mahāsaṅgha (Martha Confederacy)
Marāṭhā sāmrājya (Martha Empire)
Source: Google translate Marathi romanization below. I hope my edits can be reverted रुजेव राजु (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello @रुजेव राजु, I am very sorry, but the native name is actually meant to be used for the native official names on articles about non-English polities. Google Translate can't be used as a source here. PadFoot (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @PadFoot2008. I saw your contributions and the unfair treatment by certain editors you receive when you don’t do things their way. Please do not be disheartened or demotivated. You are fighting against POV pushers. At the page Chandragupta Maurya, "maybe Jainism" has been added under religion, making it look like scholars are confused when, in fact, the two sources that mention Jainism specifically refer to it as a probability in the last days of Chandragupta and they use the term "according to jain tradition or sources" too. Serious POV pushing. Similarly, if you look into the History of Hinduism page,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hinduism#Hindu_synthesis_and_Classical_Hinduism_(c._200_BCE_%E2%80%93_1200_CE), the date for classical Hinduism/Hindu synthesis has been pushed from '500 BC–200 BC' to just 200 BC, making an assertion that Hindu synthesis developed only after the second urbanization period leaving no space for overlapping development as noted by several other scholars. Also, The term "Common Era" has been pushed in the lede. 500 BC is not start of common era. And Someone is trying to push early Puranic Hinduism/Classical hinduism as the start of Hinduism. Even the only source used for the assertion, Larson 2009, never suggested that the synthesis developed entirely after the fall of Brahmanism. The inline citations are questionable and relate to only one source, which is being used as an authority for these assertions, and I’m not sure it was even framed properly. There is a section for 'late classical Hinduism' in the article, but 'early classical Hinduism' has been changed to 'early Hinduism,' which is extremely ambiguous and another attempt at POV pushing. I hope you will look into it. Tagging others whom I feel would be interested. @Rasnaboy @Asteramellus @Redtigerxyz @Johnbod @Hipal @RogerYg2409:4089:8283:54F2:DDEE:F18C:9C0D:5B87 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of emperors of the Mughal Empire. 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.
This warning feels like an unnecessary and deliberate attack. @PadFoot2008 first reverted to the stable version and then had the decency to choose a more neutral stance in line with the sources used. The change was made recently without any discussion on the talk page or consensus. Is there no way to complain about false warnings meant to tarnish someone's talk page? 2409:4089:8283:54F2:DDEE:F18C:9C0D:5B87 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
PadFoot2008 and I have discussed this "Brahmanical Hinduism" several times before. At the time of Chandragupta Maurya, there was no "Hinduism"; there was Brahmanism, sramana traditions, and many local traditions. "Hinduism" is the synthesis of these three elements, which developed around the beginning of the common era. Calling Brahmanism "Brahmanical Hinduism" is not "more neutral"; it's typical for the Hindutva worldview. And PadFoot2008 changed "Brahmanism" again to "Brahmanical Hinduism," despite also being reverted by User:Gotitbrodiff, who had before also corrected the religion, which was changed somewhere this summer from "Brahmanism" to "Hinduism." This slow edit-warring is endless, so yes, a warning - not the first one - is appropriate, to get through that we follow Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!07:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from your anti-Hindu and anti-India biases. The discussion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Confucius#East_Asia) clearly highlights your double standards. You advocate for the use of 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent,' yet object when 'East Asia' is favored over 'Chinese.' Furthermore, you push specific CE dates of synthesis based on your preferred sources and selective, distorted citations. The fact that certain terminology may be used by proponents of Hindutva does not grant you the right to impose your preferred terms over those acknowledged by credible sources, nor to distort established facts. It was neither Savarkar nor the BJP that claimed the Buddha was born into a Kshatriya family in Nepal. Buddha's birth took place within the context of the Hindu caste system, although his teachings ultimately transcended caste boundaries, promoting a more egalitarian spiritual path—unless you want to argue that the caste system has no relation to Hinduism.
Your reasoning—such as, 'because Hindutva supporters use the term "India," I will insist on "South Asia"'—is flawed. Opposing Hindutva by distorting sources and selectively pushing your preferred scholars only weakens your argument. Anti-Hindu bigotry is far more prevalent in today's world than any form of bigotry from Hindus. And for the record, Hinduism is an 'exonym.' It's true that earlier scholars connected the current practices of Hindus only with the Puranas before proper research was conducted, but there’s no point lamenting about new findings. Scholars also once believed Vedic Sanskrit was the mother of all Indo-European languages, but that too changed with research. So, you need to break free from this mindset, which is both dangerously toxic and biased. Additionally, to maintain neutrality, it would be more appropriate to mention 'Jainism during his final days' when referring to Chandragupta. Otherwise, it becomes evident that you harbor personal animosity and an agenda against India and Hindus, concealed behind constant rhetoric about Hindutva. Frankly, you seem to hate Hindus more than you care about Buddhists or Buddhism—whatever the reason may be. You are as stubborn as an Indian, and considering your main topics of interest, you're half Indian(Spiritually) anyway—whether you like it or not. 2409:4089:8283:54F2:E0ED:B5E1:98BC:9A0B (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
One's perception of reality is shaped by their own thoughts and beliefs. However, in practice, achieving true neutrality is extremely difficult because human beings are naturally inclined to form opinions, judgments, and emotional reactions based on past experiences, cultural conditioning, and individual preferences. of course you cant see any problem with your own editing habits. ' You see no Buddha because you think no Buddha. ' Have a good day. 2409:4089:8283:54F2:25A3:1BD2:BBA7:9883 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 I recall discussions around this few weeks back, though not sure if it reached any conclusion. I think discussion was on couple of pages and also for a disambiguous page discussion. Asteramellus (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Unless I missed something, it looks like you have canvassed editors to the AfD. I listed then three editor talk page notices in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
House of Romanov- Possible Vandalism/ Edit Warring
Hello, I just realized that Just kidding me? (talk) keeps editing the House of Romanov page relying on original research and not using reliable sources. They seem to want to include the name of an alleged Romanov descendant unattested elsewhere, also I see that they keep deleting the edits of anyone who challenges their position. They included the same information on the page of Grand Duke Nicholas Konstantinovich. Would you be so kind as to let an admin know so the situation can be fixed please? This page appears to be constantly vandalized by people who wish to support one disputed claimant to the head of the house over the other... Thank you. Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Frid.antonia-arlon, I've restored the earlier stable version prior to the edit war. Since only one editor is involved, I don't think a page protection or an admin is necessary. Simply open a talk discussion and attempt to discuss the issue with the other guy. If he continues to edit war and performs more than 3 reverts, he would have violated WP:3RR, and you can submit a report at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and the editor would likely be blocked. PadFoot (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear PadFoot, thank you for your assistance and recommendations, I have left this user a message indicating why me and other editors have challenged his edits. Let's see how they proceed after this. Also, as I mentioned before this page is constantly edited/vandalized by people who seem to support one candidate to head of the house over the others, therefore violating wikipedia's principle of neutrality. This is a usual occurrence, so much that when I edited this page the last two times I was not sure on the reliability of some sources listed there (I merely wished to restore it to a neutral and informative POV)... It would be helpful if someone could step in to resolve this.
Hello @Frid.antonia-arlon, you actually need to put that in the article talk page per 3RR. Nonetheless appears to have been no further edits by the user in question, since I restored the earlier version, so the issue appears to have been resolved. Have a great day :) PadFoot (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur
You have added Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur are Gond which has no historical basis. There are not any single article which say Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur are Gond. Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur are since 8th century accordingly to archeological findings but Gond dynasty are since 14th century. So correct your previous edit in Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur and remove Gond word. Dev0745 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The entire article repeatedly mentions that the dynasty was Gond. Additionally, Gonds are an ethnic group. I'm not sure where you get '14th century' from. PadFoot (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The word Gond was added by a user few weeks ago without sources. He edited without login, So Only his username is not showing.Gond dynasty of Deogarh in Central India came to power in 15th century. No any source mentioned Nagvanshis of Chotanagpur as Gond. Nagvanshi Genealogy mentioned them as decedent of Naga King Takshak. Also Nagvanshi speak Nagpuri language which is a Indo-Aryan language. Dev0745 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dev0745, I apologise, looking into the history of the page, it appears that an IP address vandalised the page. I've restored the correct version. PadFoot (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi@PadFoot2008 Hope all is well! I needed a small help from you if able please correct the position of vijaynagar(city)in my map of Vijaynagar Empire. I would have done it myself but currently I am going on with a personal problem. All you have to do is to download the svg file and open it on inkscape or any vector image editor and just correct it in accordance to the location of Hampi.
It's not clear to me what you're objecting to in this revert. Is it that case fixing is unconstructive, or that you think some of these terms are proper names? And where have these changes been opposed before that you're referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you would be aware that you yourself have opened multiple RMs regarding these fixes where you have been opposed. Before making these mass changes as well as the unilateral moves, you should consider getting a consensus first. PadFoot (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I know there is sometimes opposition to following MOS:CAPS, but none so far with respect to these changes. Are you saying some of what I changed were proper names? Or that some of these were opposed in RMs? Which ones? Did you look at source stats? Or at books? Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
In the edit summary of a recent edit you stated that Two of the sources are not available for free viewing to allege a claim, which you subsequently removed, was unsupported. Please be aware that there is no general requirement on English Wikipedia that sources be "available for free viewing". If you are unable to access a source but wish to contest whether it backs up a claim, you can use {{Request quotation}}, open a talk page thread, and/or speak with the editor(s) who introduced the source. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle, apologies, if my edits have been problematic, I am not that experienced in CfDs. I would like to ask your opinion here, what do you think about the name "Ancient Indian monarchies"? It seems to be a better and more concise name. PadFoot (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Restored Magadha
When Taking successors of precedors,if one takes Magadha it's hard to take in account of the dates ,as magadha did not have a ruling dynasty after the collapse of kanva
It only got a dynasty again after 100s of years , the Guptas.
We can either make a new page for "Restored Magadha" for concentration on Guptas ,Later Gupta dynasties,
I've see on Ixudi's talk page that you cited her in August.
She has again been edit warring at Padmasambhava. Instead of bringing her personal POV to Talk, she refuses to communicate there. Furthermore, I've received threats and accusations on my Talk page, which to me usually indicate the culpability of the person issuing the threats/accusations.
I made a few tentative edits that corrected factual errors and hostile POV last night, which were not again reverted. Good. I plan on continuing to bring the page back to a reputable bio. I don't know when the massive and poor quality edits were made to the page, but I remember it being at least decent.
Hello @Metokpema, I do not know what this is all about, but I'll provide general advice. If an editor is editwarring then you can simply place an editwarring notice {{subst:uw-3rr}} on his talk page. If the editor performs an undo or revert more than 3 times (i.e, 4 times or more) within 24 hours, then he would've broken WP:3RR, and you can lodge a complaint on WP:AN/3RR to bring this to the administrators attention, and the editor would usually get temporarily blocked if there has been a violation of 3RR. On an ending note, I would request both you and @Ixudi to participate on a talk page discussion and try to not resort to edit warring. PadFoot (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @PadFoot2008,could you please explain in the Tripartite Struggle why the referenced edits are removed. based only two sources? The other sources used are from historians and give differe4nt versions, and as point out, there aresome factual discrepancies in the two sources. would you like an arbitration? RegardsMaglorbd (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No content has been removed, only copyedited. If there have been accidental removal of references themselves, you can add the citations back. Also read WP:LEAD. We don't need an absolutely gargantuan lead mentioning every single battle. Just the contenders, reason for conflict and mentioning the victorious power is enough. PadFoot (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @PadFoot2008,Thank you for your prompt reply. Can you help me do this properly? The sources I used portrays the struggle as:
1) Vatsaraja takes Kannuj, defeats Dharmapala. Dhruva beats both Vatsaraja and Dharmapala. Dhruva leaves, Dharmapala occupies Kannuj.
2) Nagabhata II takes Kannauj. he then defeats Dharmapala. Govinda III defeats Nagabhata II. Dharmapala againg occupies Kannauj. Here is a major disagreement among the suurces: Dharmapala had died in 810 BC. Nagabhata could not have fought him in 816CE. Most sources agree Nagabhata II defeated Dharmapala, then Govinda beat him. Dharmapala retook Kannauj.
3) The other disagree that Prathiharas occupied Kannauj from 816 CE under Nagabhata II. They are of the opinion, based on new inscriptions found after 1970, that Dharmapala, Devapala and Mahendrapala ruled over Kannauj until 865CE. Mihir Bhoja finally took Kannauj, and Pratiharas ruled the city until 1036 CE. Sailendra Nath Sen, R.C Majumdar, and the other sources support this version, unlike Rima Hooja Syed M.Huq. How Can this be reconciled? maybe a separate section? Please help.Maglorbd (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Kannauj might have changed hands a few times between 816 and 865 A.D., there are multiple sources supporting a 816 conquest and declaration of Kannauj as the capital of the Pratiharan king Nagabhata II. It is possible Kannauj might have been lost after this period during the reign of Nagabhata's successors and Bhoja re-conquered the city in 865 A.D.. This can be mentioned in the aftermath section. PadFoot (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sailendra Nath Sen clearly mentions that Nagabhata II conquered Kannauj soon after Govinda's death in 814 A.D., and then immediately afterwards defeated Dharmapala. PadFoot (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @PadFoot2008, Thank you. I used alternate version because of the discussion in Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha. Abhinav Publications. p. 177-185. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4. Which sums up views from historians and supports the view that Nagabhatta lost control of Kannauj after defeat by Govinda, Dharmapal recovered the city againg and ruled it until his death in 810 CE, Nagabhatta retook it, maybe in 816 CE only for Devapala to occupy it after Nagabhatta's death. your thought on this? should I put it in the aftermath?Maglorbd (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Maglorbd, could you provide quotes from the sources you have provided to show where they mention that the Pratiharas lost Kannauj afterwards? PadFoot (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I will try to find sources.
A Journey Through India's Past." Mani, Chandra Mauli ISBN 81-7211-256-4
p22: "Devapala soon established supremacy over Kannauj"
History of Indian Nation" Muzaffer H.
p187: "Devapala forced Nagabhatta II to withdraw."
"Territories and States of India". ISBN 1-85743-148-0.
p162: "Palas installed King in Kannauj.....clung to supremacy under Devapala...before giving way tp Pratiharas."
There is a long discussion on this in the "Dynastic History Of Magadha" By Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha, which compares the inscriptions and grants of Vtsaraja, Nagabhatta II, Mihir Bhoja with those of Pala and Rashtrakuta Kings to construct a possible timeline of the struggle. p180-181 discusses Nagabhata II vs Dharmapala, p175-177 Dhruva and Vatsaraja, p184 mentions Nagabhatta II retaking Kannauj from Devapala c815, and holding it until 833, p185 Devapala retaking Kannauj, Mihir Bhoja taking Kannauj after 860 CE in p 191-192, and Sen, Sailendra Nath, "Ancient Indian History and Civilization" p267, p280. This adds up to Pala control over Kannauj until 865 CE. Also, these sources put the battle of Munger before Nagabhatta II was defeated by Govinda III. Thanks.Maglorbd (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in Mani (2005). I am not sure if you quoted from it. Boland-Crewe and Lea are not historians. Syed mentions that Nagabhata II permanently transferred his capital to Kannauj. "Devapala forced Nagabhata to withdraw" doesn't necessarily mean a withdrawal from Kannauj. Nagabhata had conquered parts of Gauda until Munger, it is possible the author intends to say that Devapala forced Nagabhata to withdraw from Gauda. Besides I've not heard of any wars between Devapala and Nagabhata II from any historian before. We usually follow the majority consensus among scholars. PadFoot (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you close only states a decision not to move. Would you please explain how you have assessed consensus in reaching this decision. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Three of the editors in support of the move had put forward the argument that per MOS:TITLECAPS and MOS:CAPS, "late Middle Ages" and "early Middle Ages" should be used as ngrams provided showed that capitalisation was not consistently used for the above phrases. Two other editors argued that late and early shouldn't be capitalised as they are adjectives. One editor provided no argument. However, among those in opposition to the move, six supported the argument that "Early/High/Late Middle Ages" were all terms for periods of history and hence should be capitalised. One other editor provided a list of sources that used capitalisation for the terms, while another opposed the inconsistent scheme "early/High/late". The consensus generally seemed to lean towards capitalisation. PadFoot (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Per WP:RMCI: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Also, per WP:DISCARD: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Your assessment indicates that only comments in support of the move were P&G based along with substantiating evidence. Those opposed are largely expressing unsubstantiated personal opinions - ie I think periods of history should be capped or I don't like the mixed case. One editor did not present a list of sources per se but a list of style guides. They concluded On balance it's a bit of a hodge podge - ie there is no consensus in style guides that caps are necessary and therefore, in terms of MOS:CAPS, we should lowercase. That editor chose to oppose in anycase though they also said: I can't say I'm especially fussed as to which approach we land on. If these were periods of history that should be capitalised, this would be reflected in sources and in turn, in the ngram data. The votes may have leant toward capitalisation but that is not how we determine consensus. On balance, I think it would be quite incorrect to argue a consensus against as you have and there are inconsistencies in the reasoning. The mentioned of MOS:TITLECAPS referred to an article about a book Framing the Early Middle Ages, which was struck from the RM because of the comment by the editor. The prevailing P&G is WP:AT, which invokes WP:NCCAPS, which in turn invokes MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
For the last point, I mentioned MOS:TITLECAPS on accident, I had meant WP:LOWERCASE, I had messed up the shortcuts. I don't think anyone in the RM expressed their personal opinions, neither those who said that "early/late" were adjectives nor those who said that they were part of terms for historical periods. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
One could argue that it is reasonably evident that the terms are adjectives and it is also reasonably evident that we would not usually capitalise an adjective even when it precedes a noun phrase that might normally be capitalised (eg late Christmas Day). However, we have this statement made directly or referred to by others, Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages are both terms for periods of history. They should be fully capitalised or not at all, as in late middle ages. The first is a true statement but the second is made without reference to any authority to substantiate the claim. It is ipso facto a personal opinion. What is more, it is contradicted by evidence of usage in sources (the ngram). Even I find the ngrams unconvincing - not every usage refers to the period is unsubstantiated and therefore a personal opinion that was refuted by contexturalising the ngram. My feeling is that "Early", "High", and "Late" (with a 1000–year spread) are distinct eras enough to be worthy of capitalisation is clearly framed as an opinion (my feeling) but it is also an agrument to capitalise for significance but, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS (the first section in the body of MOS:CAPS) tells us that we don't capitalise on WP for that reason. [A]nd are how I mostly see them in sources is an unsubstantiated claim and, while one will see this done in sources, evidence of usage in an aggregate of sources (the ngram) tells us this is not consistently done. The opposing arguments are largely unsubstantiated opinion which flatly contradict established P&G and the aggregate evidence of usage in sources per that P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Eastern Mauryan Empire & Magadha
I had a question from you, I believe you would know about this, what was the "Eastern Mauryan Empire" I saw it in a book about extents of empires.
I read about it a while back when researching on the topic. It is a hypothesis among some scholars that apparently after his death, Ashoka's empire was divided into two halves by Kunala and Dasharatha — the Eastern Mauryan Empire and the Western Mauryan Empire. The Western Mauryan Empire fell to the Indo-Greeks while the Eastern Mauryan Empire survived. However, this has no evidence and is only a hypothesis. I am working on the article on the Second Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Edasf, I apologise but I am not much of a contributor to that particular page. I have seen (but not read in whole or extensively participated in) the discussions regarding the map which took place from 4 August till 22 September 2023, which I can link to here:
Maybe these historians are cited by this source? Maybe you can read the source once to see if they are cited or mentioned in the text. PadFoot (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I already have.
Romila does mention about "isolated areas" but leaves out whether they were independent or autonomous,and the areas mentioned by her are vague
Thats why I said to not take her as source for defining regions.Having a map which shades core regions and autonomous differently is far better. Edasf (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what emblem or banner the Mauryans could've used. Usually, emblems of ancient entities are discovered using coins or inscriptions, or descriptions by contemporaries. For example, the emblem of the Achaemenids, was reconstructed using a plaque found in the capital city and contemporary descriptions of it, and recolored using a coloured near-contemporary marble graphic showing the war between the Macedonians (Alexander) and the Persians (Achaemenids). I think it is unlikely that the Chakra or the lion capital was used as the imperial emblem, as we lack evidence for the use of these specific symbols solely. The chakra was a part of the lion capital, and the (four-)lion capital was a part of set of other Ashokan capitals including the bull, the (one-)lion, and so on. Perhaps, historians will discover something new in the new future, I shall look further into it. PadFoot (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
"Discuss first"?
you reverted my edits on Mauryan Empire where I simply added sources.
Fowler didn't add sources, he added links to maps it appears. Your sources could be disputed, and were added in a very disorderly manner. PadFoot (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Good day to you. Could you look into edits here??? Certain user is adding as references Burjor Avari - who was not a Phd (and therefore not a scholar in true sense one can conclude) and Gobind Khushalani - who shows up nowhere as a researcher of repute as references for the Rais being Buddhists and for the claim that the Hindu Chachs "deceived" the Rais into losing their kingdom. 117.203.223.235 (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Warning messages
Please dont send warning messages when I didnt did an edit war.At first I reverted your removal because you provided inaccurate edit summary then on MMaurya Empire Rawn did a mass revert so I reverted him it was me only who reverted my map per talk page please clear before sending someone warning msg. Edasf«Talk»08:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I have changed From Haryankas to Shungas to a dynastic appearance by using "Infobox dynasty",
But now for Maurya, I am sure everyone in the world will oppose that, and considering there is already a war going on in maurya article for the map, do you think it is worth it? Or atleast worth trying? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@JingJongPascal, I think you should restore Infobox country, it presents a better appearance. Maps are pretty important in these cases. See Qing dynasty or Ming dynasty for example. PadFoot (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems like, after the collapse of Magadhan Empire Under Kanva dynasty,
Some petty dynasties ruled Magadhan and Patialputra, historians have named this as "Principality of Patialputra", it was independent till the Guptas took over the throne and formed the Restored Magadhan Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@JingJongPascal, which is sadly the problem in this case. I myself sought to create such an article, but we unfortunately lack much sources on it. However, an article could still be created out of whatever information we have and we could include Sri Gupta and Ghatotkach in it as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 I was about to mention Sri Gupta and Ghatotkach! But are we sure that their "cheifdom" was native or atleast primarily the Principality of Patialputra?
Anyways, I have made a draft where I have added some basic things you could help and check it out.
i see, although I don't think we should publish the article just out of the things we have right now.
I have created a draft, but I will try to find more sources because the article will probably not be accepted otherwise.
There was already so much criticism about Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire , even though they have alot of sources. I will look into more books JingJongPascal (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@JingJongPascal, could you please remove the Gupta mentions from the Magadhan Empire article, please? The article should not list two different polities with a 300-year gap between them as a single entity. Even scholars don't consider them a single and instead call the Guptas, the Second Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't included them? Infact I also made the "300 gap" argument against Nxcrypto and others who wanted to combine.
This is the point provided by Regents for the deletion of this article
This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) - RegentsPark
@JingJongPascal, Upon further research, it appears to me that Magadha came under the rule of various neighbouring kingdoms and empires after the fall of the Kanvas and it didn't exist as an independent entity then. It appears that it only came back to existence as an independent entity in 240 AD under the rule of Sri Gupta. So, the "principality of Pataliputra" existed from 240 AD to 320 AD, before which it formed a part of neighbouring kingdoms. PadFoot (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It was under rule of Mitras and Kalinga during 20 BCs , after that it most probably existed as a independent kingdom under influence or vassal of other kingdoms. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Only Kalinga and Mitra dynasty are confirmed ones. After that there is a empty history of 200 years without knowing who ruled the region. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maurya Empire. 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.
Hi @PadFoot2008 I was going through the Magdhan Empire page created by you, and at that time I saw that it was nominated for deletion, but before voting, I want to ask you as you have created the article. How would you explain Maurya Empire and Magdhan Empire, and prior to that, Nanda Empire, basically one state with two different names and articles? What I think is that Maurya and Nanda should be changed to dynasties instead of empires.
I would agree with you. Nandas and Mauryas were dynasties of the Magadhan Empire. There is currently an ongoing RM at Nanda Empire to move to Nanda dynasty, if you'd like to participate. PadFoot (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@JingJongPascal, I apologise but per the Wikipedia policy WP:CANVASSING, you are not allowed to ping other editors in AfDs. I cannot participate now, or else you shall be accused of canvassing and my vote will be discounted. PadFoot (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
With regards to your behaviour on articles, you seem to be behaving in a way that gives off the impression that you “own” the article e.g. repeated unilateral bold moves and always trying to get the last edit in any minor disagreement. Please refer to WP:Ownership of content.
I've decided to support your disambiguation, and anyways you were the one making bold undiscussed moves, I was reverting them. PadFoot (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Magadha Gupta
Would like your help here, whether Guptas were rulers of Magadha or not.
1) I am a good faith editor whose start on Wikipedia might have been not that good but I am getting better and now editing the space in good faith.
2) The enforcement started as a retaliation as mentioned by me in the discussion here.
3) I have edited on Wikipedia and in the past month, we can not find a single instance where I indulged in vandalism or POV pushes as mentioned in the enforcement.
I request you to Kindly share your opinion in the discussion.
Note: I am currently undergoing my semester exams in university till 15th jan, might not respond swiftly. I respect your fair-mindedness and have a good faith that you will take side of Justice.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kannauj until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Malwa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Daśapura until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kingdom of Malwa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Malwa]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. NXcryptoMessage06:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Tripartite Struggle 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. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Gujarat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I have made some changes in Shivaji's article. Though I have not removed any info but added some from my side as the previous lead missed many parts like directly going from 1656 to 1665 without a mention of why Aurangzeb invaded Shivaji's dominions etc. So added those briefly. Also, after 1665 not a single mention about what happened till his death so added briefly that part.
I have written it to you as I'm not frequently active on Wikipedia so I may not answer frequently to persons who have queries or your queries as you seem to be active in such articles. So please don't revert it blindly. All the info added by me are sourced (WP:RS) and important which are suitable for the lead. The previous lead missed major parts the current seems better understandable to the reader. The lead is certainly not very long as you could compare it to articles like Aurangzeb, Napoleon, Alexander etc. Moreover, I have only provided important info in the article nothing has been removed by me you could see that.
I have provided you why and what i have changed in the article. Hope you'll find it better too.
Hi PadFoot, Recently you removed some maps from Awadhi language. I agree that repeated maps should be removed. But you removed a map which was explaining regions or districts of Awadhi language. That needs to be restored. Regards Blaada (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
