This is an archive of past discussions with User:PadFoot2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
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 Military uniform, 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. If you have issues with the link take it to the talk page. This is already the second revert and your entering edit warring territory if you continue per WP:BRDLeventio (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Military uniform. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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. Again, take this to the talk page if you want to discuss, not through edit summaries. Or I will report you for edit warring.Leventio (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand your emotions but British India/British Raj one one side and India are not the same. Not political and not geographically. Could you please stop with pushing this personal view? The Bannertalk20:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@The Banner It isn't a personal view. British India refers to provinces of India during the Raj. British Raj refers to the period of British Crown rule over India from 1858 to 1947, sometimes the rule itself. While the entire country including "British India" and the princely states during the Raj, was called India or Indian Empire. This is a really basic thing, any editor working on articles related to modern Indian history should know this.PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Interpretation Act, 1889 of the UK parliament (PDF link)
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
Unfortunately, the Gazetteer does not support your stance. And the other link is totally unclear as it lacks page and article numbers, so impossible to verify. The Bannertalk12:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The Imperial Gazetteer is a government record, so I don't get why it doesn't support my stance. If the link isn't workable for you, you can search elsewhere for pdf copies of the Imperial Gazetteer of India. Also, I don't think you dispute the validity and content of the Interpretation Act. So I'm assuming you've accepted the definition for "British India" and "India", but are still in doubt with the term "Indian Empire". Correct me if I'm wrong. Also here are some references I borrowed from the Wikipedia article on British Raj, listing the definition of British Raj as given by historians and scholars. [1][2] All of these describe the Raj as a period or era, or in some cases, the British Crown rule itself, but not the country. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
What I doubt are your claim that:
British Raj = India
British India = India
British Indian Army = Indian Army
some other claims that I don't remember now.
It is loud and clear that in 1947 British India was split into two (now three) states. Therefore, present India is not identical to British India but smaller. By naming it all India, you suggest that you are talking about the present state. That is not correct. The Bannertalk09:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm definitely not making such claims except the one where you said 'British Indian Army = Indian Army'. The real and nominal name for the British Indian Army is Indian Army. The British prefix was added only in certain cases in Wikipedia such as the article name as there can't exist two articles with the same name. I'm now going to make a talk page in the article to explain rest of my edits. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@The Banner and PadFoot2008: This is not the place for such a conversation. You have edit-warred over content. PadFoot2008 has earlier unsuccessfully suggested some edits on the British Raj page, related versions of which they are now attempting on other pages. The Banner, please post on Talk:British Raj. User talk pages are useful for warnings about behavior, not usually about protracted discussions on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
^*Hirst, Jacqueline Suthren; Zavros, John (2011), Religious Traditions in Modern South Asia, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN978-0-415-44787-4, As the (Mughal) empire began to decline in the mid-eighteenth century, some of these regional administrations assumed a greater degree of power. Amongst these ... was the East India Company, a British trading company established by Royal Charter of Elizabeth I of England in 1600. The Company gradually expanded its influence in South Asia, in the first instance through coastal trading posts at Surat, Madras and Calcutta. (The British) expanded their influence, winning political control of Bengal and Bihar after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. From here, the Company expanded its influence dramatically across the subcontinent. By 1857, it had direct control over much of the region. The great rebellion of that year, however, demonstrated the limitations of this commercial company's ability to administer these vast territories, and in 1858 the Company was effectively nationalized, with the British Crown assuming administrative control. Hence began the period known as the British Raj, which ended in 1947 with the partition of the subcontinent into the independent nation-states of India and Pakistan.
Salomone, Rosemary (2022), The Rise of English: Global Politics and the Power of Language, Oxford University Press, p. 236, ISBN978-0-19-062561-0, Between 1858, when the British East India Company transferred power to British Crown rule (the "British Raj"), and 1947, when India gained independence, English gradually developed into the language of government and education. It allowed the Raj to maintain control by creating an elite gentry schooled in British mores, primed to participate in public life, and loyal to the Crown.
Ahmed, Omar (2015), Studying Indian Cinema, Auteur (now an imprint of Liverpool University Press), p. 221, ISBN9781800347380, The film opens with what is a lengthy prologue, contextualising the time and place through a detailed voice-over by Amitabh Bachchan. We are told that the year is 1893. This is significant as it was the height of the British Raj, a period of crown rule lasting from 1858 to 1947.
Wright, Edmund (2015), A Dictionary of World History, Oxford University Press, p. 537, ISBN978-0-19-968569-1, More than 500 Indian kingdoms and principalities […] existed during the 'British Raj' period (1858–1947) The rule is also called Crown rule in India
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Yama (Hinduism) into Yamuna in Hinduism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about this. I can assure you that I haven't copied materials between pages before and this was a first, so I was unaware the attribution rules. I'll make sure to do it from next time onwards. Thanks a lot! PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
Hello. This is regarding your recent infobox edits on articles regarding the Trimurti and Tridevi, a few of which I have reverted. I appreciate that you wish to make edits to them, but would also like to offer you the following points to bear in mind: Please add a short description whenever you're making edits on articles, because it often comes across as a disruptive edit if you don't. Next, when making infobox edits, especially regarding such significant topics, please do discuss your proposed changes on the talkpage and gain consensus before implementing changes. There could very well Lastly, do add citations to any changes that you make to support your contributions. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm 1AmNobody24. Your recent edit(s) to the page Dyaus appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Vif12vf. Your recent edit(s) to the page Deccan States Agency appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The term "Indian Empire" is a false term that should not be used for the British Raj.Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No, literally, what do you mean? Princely States were never a part of British India. This is such a basic thing I'd expect ever Wikipedian who regularly edit Indian articles to know. I respect your concern regarding unconstructive edits, but I can assure you that it's not an unconstructive edit, which you'd come to know if you were to research just a bit of modern Indian History. I agree with you on the fact that Indian Empire shouldn't be used for British Raj. British Raj refers to the Crown rule over India between 1858 to 1947 itself or the period, while Indian Empire is a term mentioned in the Imperial Gazetteer of India used to refer to territorial extent of India during this time. Almost all Government maps during the period label it as such.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dir (princely state). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Princely States weren't a part of British India. If you still aren't ready to accept that, then I'm gonna put some citations as well.
Dir was a Princely State and princely states were not a part of British India according to the Interpretation Act 1889:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[ PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You don't need to tell me the definition of British Raj.
It referred a period and
"Hence began the period known as the British Raj, which ended in 1947"
the Crown rule itself.
"Between 1858, when the British East India Company transferred power to British Crown rule (the "British Raj"), and 1947"
You haven't been able to provide any sources explicitly stating that it was the name of the state itself. Please also go through the Imperial Gazetteer of India and the various acts passed by the UK parliament.
Also why are you reverting all my edits to every page I've edited? Would you like someone else to blindly revert all your edits without even stating a reason? Until and unless you state a reason for reverting all my edits without any reason, I'm going to revert back all my edits.
Your attempt to have the name changed from British Raj was rejected back in Summer [1], however I see you are still changing its name in various articles. That is disruptive. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you're dissatisfied with the name of x article, make a move request/discussion in said article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Holy moly, A LOT of your recent edits have been reverted. Actually the vast majority of your edits from this Summer seems to be have been reverted. And they mostly seem to have to do with terminology. In that case I'll be more blunt and harsh; Continue and you will be reported to WP:ANI, it can't be right that our users have to spend that much time on you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Com'on it's not my fault. I'm even providing sources. I think [[User:Vif12vf|Vif12vf]] has taken my edits too personally. I'm just trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate. And you need sources to do that. Which I am providing. And also which Vif12vf doesn't care to provide. In fact, many don't care to provide. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pradyota dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avanti. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
@DaxServer Hello, thanks for notifying me. Actually I've been notified before and I'm already aware of that. Can I do something so that people know that aware of it as I frequently edit such pages? PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Emperor of India 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. DrKay (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit is pure fantasy. The Bengal Presidency at one point stretched from the Khyber Pass to Singapore. This is an established, well-known and undisputed fact. As this book by the historian Rosie Llewellyn-Jones lays out, "The Bengal Presidency, an administrative jurisdiction introduced by the East India Company, would later include not only the whole of northern India up to the Khyber Pass on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan, but would spread eastwards to Burma and Singapore as well." Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Contentious topics area the Balkans or Eastern Europe
You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Mughal Empire lead
@PadFoot2008 mind explaining your revert on Mughal Empire? Also, where you saw edit warring there? Don't make baseless claims. The lead sentence was stable for a pretty long time till some IPs changed it, and page-watchers would have restored it anyway.
Hello editor @Sutyarashi, you've been attempting to change the long standing lead for a long time now. The lead was made by an administrator-supervised consensus a while ago. You can open a discussion on the Mughal Empire talk page if you want to change that. Please see WP:BRD. Thank you. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 Sorry, but you should see page history. The lead sentence got changed only a couple of months ago, and there is no consensus regarding it at the talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008 it does seem that you were in a dispute with other editors regarding whether it was Muslim or Islamic empire. Well, I have no problem with it. Though I am of view that it should be removed entirely as its vast majority was not Muslim. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Checking this edit of 1 March 2022, it appears that neither Islamic nor Muslim Empire was present. Let's just remove both, shall we? PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indian Rebellion of 1857, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hodson.
Thanks for telling me. I have add ed necessary references and submitted the drafts for review. I do not plan on expanding them further, I created them because articles on those topics were missing. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Walenty Dembiński. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
