User talk:PadFoot2008 - Wikipedia

  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

  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

  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

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

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

  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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

  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)Reply

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)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 [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)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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)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

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)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

There's kind of consensus at India-related articles to use "South Asia," not "Indian subcontinent." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I've posed a question at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#"Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia" to clarify the status of this 'informal consensus'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same thing was mentioned by RegentPark in the Mughal dynasty talk page. “South Asia” is generally what we go by. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

  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

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

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

Hey. You are a very experienced editor (more than me), so I wanted to reach out to you before flagging the page as G12 or RD1. But basically, your article looks like it has very close paraphrasing to the book, especially the "History" section. You may wish to check out the CopyPatrol report: https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en?filter=all&filterPage=Mahasenagupta&drafts=0&revision=1243118993

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.

Regards, win8x (talking | spying) 03:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Win8x, thanks for informing me, I did intend to paraphrase it further, which I am in the process of doing right now. PadFoot (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done, @Win8x, do tell me if it requires more copyediting. PadFoot (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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.

If you have any more questions, ask me! Regards, win8x (talking | spying) 14:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot @Win8x. PadFoot (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oups... looks like it wasn't enough. An admin went and removed it. Sorry :( win8x (talking | spying) 20:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@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)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk:List of emperors of the Mughal Empire#Emperor Of Hindustan WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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:

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. NebY (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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 Chandragupta Maurya, 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! 19:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussed before, explained before, rejected todau by two editors. Stop. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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:Gotitbro diff, 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)Reply

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)Reply

your anti-Hindu and anti-India biases - here we go again.... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

Discussions related to this term on different topics on Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion and Talk:History of Hinduism. Also Brahmanical Hinduism. Asteramellus (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:States and territories disestablished in 1593 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!} 22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mamluk dynasty (Delhi), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Razia and Nasiruddin Mahmud.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:History of the Maratha Confederacy has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that you have been separating Indian dynasties and their political entity

(like Maitraka and Kingdom of Vallabhai were same article before , and same way you did for kingdom of gujarat ,malwa etc.)

i think this was very needed for indian aswell as burmese , bangladeshi wiki to separate dynasties from their political entities! JingJongPascal (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the appreciation! PadFoot (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 @RogerYg 2409:4089:8283:54F2:DDEE:F18C:9C0D:5B87 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked editor looking for a stooge. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply