Jump to content

User talk:PadFoot2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2024

[edit]

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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. – sbaio 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to History of Hinduism, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Edit-warring again; how many warnings do you need? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, what you are doing is edit warring as well. PadFoot (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at History of Hinduism, you may be blocked from editing. Stop edit-warring; one more revert and I'll report you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

[edit]

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.

Useful links:

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)[reply]

Primefac (talk · contribs) Please remove the page mover right from this user. This user was told below not to move pages unilaterally against consensus but has continued to do so. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
OK. Please try to be more careful. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Um, @Primefac? PadFoot (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done, I've requested the perm again. PadFoot (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible page moves

[edit]

Information icon 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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]]}}.
I recommend using User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap to avoid mistakes during round-robin swaps – and just to make them easier in general. It reduces, but does not eliminate, the chance of causing Liz (or less likely me) to come to your talk page. SilverLocust 💬 03:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks. Also, those moves of war articles to use hyphens are incorrect per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. See examples like Mexican–American War, Philippine–American War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Chechen–Russian conflict, Swedish–Norwegian War, Soviet–Afghan War. SilverLocust 💬 03:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I also fixed Polish–Russian War (1609–1618) [1] which I had recently moved per the move discussion in the talk page (regarding the dates). PadFoot (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muslims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Kannauj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Issue

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Return of Sock of DeccanFlood

[edit]

hello, PadFoot2008, i found the sockpuppet of DeccanFlood, Chauthcollector is a sock of DeccanFlood. DeccanFlood not using his old id because DeccanFlood several times has been blocked so he using his 4 months old id Chauthcollector. 2409:40D6:1D:BF4B:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

[edit]

When closing an RM in a controversial topic area, an explanation is in order. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Srnec, I had thought that an explanation is required only in cases where consensus is not sufficiently clear? PadFoot (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like here, you mean! No clear consensus at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I count a 14-to-8 support for the move (including the nom). PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The page "The Maratha rebellion"

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Historyenjoyer10, please do not use an IP to edit Wikipedia, as that is sockpuppetry. Please use your Wikipedia account only. Anyways, in brief:
  1. The term "Maratha Rebellion" as well other similar terms like Maratha Insurgency, Maratha Uprising, etc. most commonly refer to the Deccan wars.
  2. 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.
  3. Shivaji's military conflicts are already covered in great detail in the main article Shivaji itself.
Also do not edit war. Discuss your issues here or on the talk page of that page. PadFoot (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Raj
added a link pointing to Bengal Province
Lakhuji Jadhav
added a link pointing to Statesman
Paramara dynasty
added a link pointing to Rana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]

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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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.

Second warning: you're edit-warring. @Doug Weller and Abecedare: for admin-feedback. See Talk:History of Hinduism#"Ancient Hinduism". Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
You're as stubborn as me. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, mate. The good thing is that we always arrive at a consensus at the end :) PadFoot (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Raj
added a link pointing to Bengal Province
Turkic peoples in India
added a link pointing to Indo-Aryan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request

[edit]

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:COMMONNAME Ngram. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to History of Hinduism, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Maurya Empire, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Take a very good look at those sources; they don't support "Hinduism" Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ixudi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Template:South Asia in 1400, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixudi (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
This is harassment: reverting an edit from almost a year ago. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guhila dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahendra Singh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ixudi (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

[edit]

Saw your edits in the article, you may be interested in this change. Note that the ID is a sock and got blocked few minutes back. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. I have looked into the issue. PadFoot (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the flag of mewar

[edit]

Hello @PadFoot2008, the flag which you have uploaded on Kingdom of Mewar is incorrect, that is the flag of Udaipur State, Chhattisgarh not of Mewar. File:In_mewar-state.png this is the actual one, source for this flag is here hubert-herald.nl/BhaRajasthanMewar.htm. I hope this would help. Regards 2409:4052:2E37:B7D5:7159:8F02:F3EF:18E0 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'll correct it. PadFoot (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

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 [2]"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.

What are your thoughts ? Rawn3012 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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 ?
RegardsRawn3012 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:5th-century maharajadhirajas

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:5th-century maharajadhirajas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

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)[reply]

Stop POV-pushing on articles

[edit]

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. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3] 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 [4]. Certainly, not a sign that you want to be transparent with you editting. PadFoot (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Not very nice of you to divert from the relevant discussion. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

Oh, you're implying you have the time? Go for it. They do not change the present. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, the block logs are public. Haha. I see what you are doing here. You can go off. Just hope some admin does not see it. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me to die? You are not being very civil are you. Talking of admins, I do know a few – @Abecedare, @DaxServer, @DougWeller and @Hey man im josh. PadFoot (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Perhaps remove the allegation of me "POV pushing" from the header of this very section then? You could have calmly discussed the issue but you chose to instead make false accusations on me. Anyways, a few sources using Indian subcontinent – Indica: A Deep Natural History of the Indian Subcontinent, and India: The Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Subcontinent from C. 7000 BCE to CE 1200, and also this, Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent. PadFoot (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alright, usually "go off" refers to a bomb exploding, so I took it the wrong way. PadFoot (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, usually "go off" refers to a bomb exploding, so I took it the wrong way. PadFoot (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 16:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sorry @DaxServer. But you do participate in this area, and you know this editor as well, perhaps you could provide your opinion? PadFoot (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Asia
  2. ^ https://sai.columbia.edu/content/very-short-history-south-asia-six-key-themes-and-timeline
  3. ^ https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/is-the-term-south-asia-correct/
  4. ^ https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/downloadpdf/book/9781529205169/ch002.xml
  5. ^ Karttunen, Klaus. "Avari, Burjor: India: The Ancient Past" Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, vol. 110, no. 1, 2015, pp. 70-71.

Edit-warring in Kalash people

[edit]

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)[reply]

Second warning; and you're on WP:3RR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, we have took it to the talk page now (at Talk:Kalash people). PadFoot (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! Best of luck to you both on your shared goal of improving the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, I have not broken WP:3RR, have I? I don't think I have. I'm self-reverting if I have. PadFoot (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maharaja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harsha

[edit]

Hello, PadFoot2008,

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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PadFoot2008&oldid=1242347976"