User talk:PadFoot2008/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

May 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm PerpetuityGrat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Quadrilateral Security Dialogue have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat Okay, No problem PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

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:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

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.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

RegentsPark (comment) 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Next time

... you make disruptive edits when the whole world knows the words "king emperor," you are looking at being penalized. Think about it seriously. Very seriously. Study File:EdwardVIIKingEmperorIndia1903and1908.jpg again and again, and then again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Sorry, didn't had an idea what King-Emperor is. Don't call it disruptive though, sounds a bit harsh, just a misunderstanding.
Pardon. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand, but that is all the more the reason that you should not be directly editing the leads of high level articles such as the British Raj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

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 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:BRD Leventio (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Information icon 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.

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)

Mrwhosetheboss

As I stated in my edit summaries, the introductory sentence should only refer to the person's nationality, not their ethnic origin; see MOS:ETHNICITY. ... discospinster talk 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sevastopol

Hey. Please note that there is a new general sanction; only extended-confirmed users are allowed to edit articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

British India/British Raj vs. India

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 Banner talk 20:03, 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)
Do you have reliable sources for this? The Banner talk 20:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@The Banner Of course, I do.

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.


You can refer to the Imperial Gazetteer of India for the term "Indian Empire" (link).
PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
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 Banner talk 12:15, 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:
  1. British Raj = India
  2. British India = India
  3. British Indian Army = Indian Army
  4. 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 Banner talk 09:45, 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)
Starting a discussion is also an attempt to stop editwarring/POV-pushing. That you think it needs a wider audience is something I agree with. Beside that, PadFoot2008 started a discussion here: Talk:Allies of World War II#Incorrect usage of term "British India" in many cases; argument for my case.The Banner talk 11:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ *Hirst, Jacqueline Suthren; Zavros, John (2011), Religious Traditions in Modern South Asia, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-44787-4, 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, ISBN 978-0-19-062561-0, 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.
  2. ^
    • Steinback, Susie L. (2012), Understanding the Victorians: Politics, Culture and Society in Nineteenth-Century Britain, London and New York: Routledge, p. 68, ISBN 978-0-415-77408-6, The rebellion was put down by the end of 1858. The British government passed the Government of India Act, and began direct Crown rule. This era was referred to as the British Raj (though in practice much remained the same).
    • Ahmed, Omar (2015), Studying Indian Cinema, Auteur (now an imprint of Liverpool University Press), p. 221, ISBN 9781800347380, 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, ISBN 978-0-19-968569-1, 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon 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)

Information icon 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)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Information icon 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.
Again I'd request you to please go through Indian history PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Information icon 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.

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. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Baluchistan Agency, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Indian princely states. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed it, now. Thanks. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of monarchs and ruling houses of Magadha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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 (t · m · e · c) 18:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@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)
Hi. You can put {{ctopics/aware}} at the top of the talk page — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Cut paste moves

Please refrain from making cut=paste moves. See WP:CUTPASTE. Instead request page moves at relevant talk pages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, I apologise for the cut paste move. I wasn't aware that it could lead talk page issues. I have put up a technical move request now. Thanks for informing me. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
That's OK. You are welcome . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk, I've ran into a problem. A user told me that the move wouldn't be considered an "uncontested move" and thus I have had to open a discussion here Talk:Shunga_Empire#Requested_move_5_June_2023. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I saw that comment. He is right, we have to go through that process. We already have a few RM discussions in the talk page before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
So we can have another? (The one I've linked) PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Stop icon

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)

I apologize for edit warring. I'd forgotten the three-revert rule. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uttar Pradesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I've fixed it now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Information icon Please engage in constructive edits. Your recent edits to the Bengal Presidency are duplicating content and removing longstanding information without a valid or reasonable explanation. Please also be aware of Wikipedia policies regarding WP:COMMONNAME, WP:BIAS and WP:VANDALISM. Thank you. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the corresponding discussion in the talk page of Bengal Presidency. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Bengal Presidency

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

Information icon 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.

Once again, please don't make any such claims when you can't provide evidence. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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)
@PadFoot2008 like I said earlier, I have no problem with removal of its mention. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

refactoring

You should not remove comments or alter then if they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, again. Can I use {{strikethrough|}} then? PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
That is the correct way. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I've fixed it. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also read wp:bludgeon and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I cannot keep saying "I disagree with your suggestions". Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I have never had to say sorry this many times ever before. I'm looking for rs. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

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.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced creations

Hello, Please do not create articles without any references. While working on a new article, use draftspace.   𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Walenty Dembiński moved to draftspace

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.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 10:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've added required sources and references and submitted it for reviews. Cheers! PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor) moved to draftspace

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.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've added referrences and submitted the draft for review. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PadFoot2008/Archive_1&oldid=1180224285"