User talk:PadFoot2008

June 2023

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

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)

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)

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)

Deputy Chancellor of Lithuania

Hello - I see that you recently created the article Grand Chancellor of Lithuania, with the explanation, "The offices of Grand Chancellor of Lithuania and Chancellor of Poland were seperate." Would you be interested in doing the same for Deputy Chancellor of Lithuania? Gjs238 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Gjs238. I do plan on creating articles for Chancellor of Lithuania, Vice Chancellor of Lithuania and Deputy Chancellor of Lithuania too after conducting adequate research on the topics and finding relevant information (such as first holder, last holder, etc). PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited States and union territories of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

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

Eastern States Agency

added a link pointing to ICS

Rajasthani languages

added a link pointing to Marwari

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Walenty Dembiński (July 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Walenty Dembiński and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PadFoot2008! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor) (July 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Red-tailed hawk was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern States Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Indian Army

Hello

I understand that Indian Army was called as so before independence also and the term British Indian Army is only used so that pre-independence army could be distinguished from the present one. But using only the formation date of the British administered Indian Army would deceive readers in thinking that present organisation is same as the old one without being a separate entity, but that's not the case.

You may see other articles infobox which have same format for the dates like United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, United States Navy. Even article about Indian Navy and Indian Air Force use the same format, even though Indian Air Force at it's time of formation in 1932 was just called Indian Air Force and only between 1945-1950 the term Royal Indian Air Force was used.

Regards Job Chodh Du (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your examples are not valid. Those entities had name changes or had been independent entities earlier. (Even RIN had a name change in 1950.) The same thing doesn't apply to the Indian Army. Organization structure changes have happened even after 1950. The Indian Army has seen no such name change. Please open a talk page discussion and see WP:BRD. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What about Indian Air Force, it was formed as Indian Air Force and only used the prefix Royal for a brief period between 1945 to 1950 but still the article states it was formed as Royal Indian Air Force. Also other organisations like German Air Force called Luftwaffe was formed during Nazi German time in 1933 but to distinguish that air force from the present German one, 1956 is given as the date of formation. Another example could be of the Russian Army which was formed in 1550 but the current form of it was formed in 1992.

I will start a discussion on the article's talk page according to your suggestions and also revert to the older version of the article that had been in use for a long time until a consensus is reached. Job Chodh Du (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about the Indian Air Force. All Wikipedia articles are independent of each other. You can't use one to source the other. Aren't you familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. DrKay (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring at Emperor of India

I'm coming here from this ANEW report, where you have been reported for edit-warring. Though you did self-revert your fourth revert, you then made a fifth revert about 25 hours after your first revert, which though technically isn't within 24 hours is still edit-warring and falls within the purview of WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. I did not block you for this series of reverts, because I hope that with this understanding of what constitutes a revert that you will cease reverting and use the talk page and get a clear consensus for any changes rather than edit warring.

Please take this as a warning that your edit warring on the article Emperor of India is inappropriate and that if it continues, a block or other restrictions (including contentious topic restrictions such as a 1RR rule) will very likely follow. Per your comment at WP:ANEW you are now fully aware of what edit-warring and 3RR are, and should avoid further edit warring. Please pay particular attention to the section of WP:3RR that states Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. - Aoidh (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Aoidh. I'll never edit war again and will always try to resolve it through talk page discussions. Thanks a lot.

Also could you please have a look at Royal Indian Navy, please? I made an edit but it was reverted by an editor Job Chodh Du, after which I opened a discussion – Talk:Royal Indian Navy#User Job Chodh Du and pinged him but there was no reply. I reverted his revert stating the reason I stated in the talk page, but the user proceeded to revert again. I replied to my own comment in the discussion, pinging him again, but there has been no reply. I do not want to edit war. What do I do? I've only done one revert. He is not participating in the discussion. Thanks a lot again. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I see from the tags on their edits that they are editing using a mobile device, so they may or may not have gotten the ping. I have left a message on their user talk page asking them to participate in the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh, it's been 48 hours and Job Chodh Du has still not replied, neither on their user talk page nor on the talk page of Royal Indian Navy. What do I do now? Does there exist a Wikipedia guideline regarding this? PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What I would personally do in this instance, is wait another day or so to see if maybe they were just away for the weekend and unable to respond, and if no response is forthcoming, make your edit and in the edit summary say something along the lines of "making this change per the discussion I started on the talk page, if there is still disagreement on this matter please use the talk page so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached" and go from there. Judging from the edit summaries they are at least seeing and responding to your edit summaries, so that's what I would suggest. I see that they did engage in discussion at Talk:Indian Army#Formation date, and if this disagreement is a theme across several related articles it might help to leave a neutrally worded message at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Related talk pages or WikiProjects (the noticeboard I linked is the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject India). - Aoidh (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for your advice. That's what I am going to do then. I think I'm going to wait till tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and then if they don't reply I'll make the edit and leave a summary as you said. Thanks. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

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

Indian Army

added a link pointing to East African campaign

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Shivaji

The legacy section has been part of the page for a long time. It wasn't added recently. I have restored it. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Akshaypatill. All right, thanks for notifying me. I have not been around in this article for a long time. I had thought that Nonentity had added it recently. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. Happy editing. : ) Akshaypatill (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited States and union territories of India, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages United Provinces and Defunct.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dang district, India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EIC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maratha Empire

How do you figure the policy doesn't cover successors and predecessors? As far as I'm aware, the manual of style takes precedence over any parameters. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably every article of a modern or medieval era country uses flags for predecessors and successors. MoS allows flags on certain exceptional situations and also if the template documentation specifically allows flags for a particular parameter. If you want that change, it should happen in every single article, for which you would need a dedicated WikiProject discussion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@FutureFlowsLoveYou, please do not make large scale changes to multiple articles without a community consensus. Especially longstanding edits. Please open a WikiProject discussion on that matter.

Quoting from WP:INFOBOXFLAGS:

Examples of acceptable exceptions include infoboxes for military conflicts,...

In case of Template:Infobox country, Template:Infobox geopolitical organization, etc. the given examples use the flags in certain parameters and thus are allowed. The documentation does adhere to the policies and follows community consensus. Only in template documentations where the flags are not use or have been deprecated, you can cite the policy and remove the flag. Could you please revert all your edits which removed predecessor and successor flags (unless they are fictional or fake ones, which Wikipedia seems to be plagued with) and ones from military conflicts, if you please. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As for military conflicts, "acceptable exception" does not mean they have to use icons. WP:MILMOS#FLAGS, for example, lists this:

In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:

• Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.

Having read this, and precedent discussions, military conflict boxes are not exempt from the manual of style, but are mentioned as having possible exceptions. (f.x. distinguishing between multiple allegiances between generals).

As there are only two parties in Siege of Trebizond (1461), the flags are only decorative in use. There's no need to distinguish between them with images, when words have already done so. I've not done too many edits on battles, and I don't consider these to be large scale changes.

I don't see where template documentations are given precedence over the MoS, WP:INFOBOXFLAGS doesn't mention any exceptions to Template:Infobox country. Per WP:MOS, its opening paragraph, the manual of style takes precedence over any contradictions. I've seen this commented on by other users.[1]

Mughal Empire, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Kievan Rus', Golden Horde are some major examples of medieval states lacking flags, or having removed them and kept it that way. Many of my flag removals have been of relatively recent icon additions, within 1-2 years, which were added with a text summary smaller than mine, and certainly without starting an entire WikiProject discussion for their additions. I don't consider long-standing edits to be of special value unless derived from prior consensus. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are making large-scale changes. And the Delhi Sultanate did have a flag as per the consensus. Many of the other entities mentioned also had some kind of banner, vexillum, etc. to represent the state. They were arguably flags too. And are you suggesting that all template documentations like Infobox country and geopolitical organization are incorrect? They are a violation of MoS? And your arbitrary non-consensus changes across multiple articles are acceptable and correct? I have no opposition to removing fictional flags and the use of maps in flags, but it is a common practice and convention to use flags in certain other areas such as successor/predecessor, military conflict, sports etc. Even if you think it's a violation of policy (which I don't think to be), you do need to open a discussion, if your edit is reverted, per WP:BRD. And if a consensus is not reached you would need an RFC. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment on the Delhi Sultanate, I'm speaking of the predecessor and successor box, not whether an entity actually had a flag or not.

You also didn't say anything about BRD, you insisted I open a discussion before making any of these changes. We're having a discussion right now. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@FutureFlowsLoveYou, Apologies for the misunderstanding. I insisted on a discussion because of WP:BRD. And I had also requested you to revert all your edits removing non-fictional flag icons. Per procedure, I need to revert the edits myself and then participate in a discussion, but I had ask you to do it as I intend to show good faith. I have reverted all the edits I object to myself now per procedure. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my late response. My edits were not so much about the flag parameter itself, but what I consider inappropriate usage. I'm not working against icons as a whole, but instead their unhelpful inclusion in successor/predecessor info boxes I come across. Despite there being a parameter for flags, the manual style still has guidelines which apply. This would be f.x. MOS:DECOR and the general principles in MOS:INFOBOX, in regards to consistency across articles (Only some of the countries having flags, only some using non-flag types. Many articles already used no icons. See revert where Maratha has undue prominence from being the only icon in an article) which look jarring when moving between pages. Them having no utility, nothing is lost by cutting them. There's no guideline that says parameters must be used, and as far as I know none of the articles which I changed had any consensus based changes for their usage. I wouldn't call these arbitrary choices, if I were to use your language, removing icons is quite common when it produces a more consistent, cleaner, and less ugly article navigation. (Roman Empire uses no icons, but Lazica uses a roman military banner? But it doesn't have a flag for Abkhazia for they have none.)

If it can be proven, in certain articles or series of articles, that icon usage is an improvement, then I have no opposition to it. But I didn't find that to be the case where I was editing. (Common inclusion of flags does not mean flags for any reason) FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In general, adding information, which includes certain flags, is seen as improvement to an infobox. Flags can also be seen as adding information. I do agree with you on certain matters though such as the removing fictional flags and unreadable map icons. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Union of India

How is the name under which a body "can be sued" not its "legal name"? There's nothing on the page about official names. So, your edit summary is disingenuous and false. DrKay (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Article 300 only concerns court cases against the Union or a State. The case will be called "XYZ vs the Union of India" if involving the federal government and "XYZ vs the State of Punjab" if involving the state government of, here, Punjab. This is a case of pars pro toto where the federal government represents India (the Union of India) and the state government represents Punjab (the State of Punjab). The government itself isn't called that, but instead represents it. Isn't this the same in the United States, where a court case is called "XYZ v. United States of America" against the federal gov, or "XYZ v. State of Texas" or "XYZ v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" against a state gov. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it says "sue or be sued". That includes court cases both against and instituted by the government. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

All right. Then, it includes vice versa too. But my point still stands. Its only for court cases and the name (Union of India, State of Texas, United States of America) doesn't actually refer to the federal or state government but that the federal or state government represents the Union or the State, just like the court cases in United States too. It's a case of pars pro toto. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Do Not Change Samvidhan Sadan to Constitution House again

The official name never follows a LANGUAGE, Rashtrapati Bhawan is not President's Home on ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA neither is the name of any Monument having Hindi (or Indian name) for that purpose. If you think it should be changed PROVIDE CITATIONS OR SOURCES more reliable than Your Own Highly valuable thoughts. And do not attempt to start an edit war by changing it again and again (without supporting documents) Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)