Avenger2000

Comment on Gajapati invasion of Bidar

Give the reason for the comments that you have made on the Gajapati invasion of Bidar. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The wiki article Gajapati invasion of Berar is completely out of context. There was no recorded invasion on Berar by Gajapati army. The wiki article might confuse readers and should be removed from wiki. Avenger2000 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. We won't use primary sources here. As the creator put forward secondary sources, your statement is invalid. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You have created an entire article with a completely wrong name. The Berar article should be deleted first. The admins didn't check the source at that time so they allowed it to be created other wise there was no chance.

Anyway here we are using all references. Primary we are yet to use. All the sources are secondary as of now. Subrahmanyam and Venkataramanayya who catagorically mention Bidar was captured using Telugu chatu verse and inscription. They have clearly said Ferishta made exaggeration. Even the translator of Ferishta says so. Dont remove texts. Let the admin decide. Avenger2000 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I can provide quotations for the Gajapati invasion of Bidar. So stop staying that I made it wrong. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gajapati invasion of Bidar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

all the sources added. Avenger2000 (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. The article is completely based on the campaign of 1461. Try not to add up later campaigns to change the scope of the article. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ferishta mentions both the incidents happened in 1461 he also mentions the second invasion coincided with the invasion of Malwa which happened again in 1461. Please check primary sources only.

If you want to say that this article will only have the first invasion then write that in the name of article itself "First Gajapati invasion of Bidar". I'll create another article with second invasion as title. The name.of the article "Gajapati invasion of bidar" can't have only one part which will create doubt in the minds of readers.

Please note i'm not removing the first instance at all. Im just adding the second instance which happened just immediately as per Ferishta himself. If you want me to explicitly mention that it is second instance then i can do that. Indirectly im doing that though. But still if you want me to do that explicitly then ill do. Please let me know. Avenger2000 (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay create second Gajapati Invasion of Bidar, and leave this article for its scope Imperial^[AFCND] 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I found proof of both invasions happening in 1461 here are those.

I found proof that the second invasion of Bidar happened in 1461 only.

1. Malwa king invaded in 1461. Reference: book: Medieval Malwa by Upendra Nath Dey page 151.
2. Compare the text of Ferishta where he mentions that when Malwa sultan invaded Bidar at that time Gajapati forces invaded Malwa again. References: Book : History of the rise of the Mohammudan power in India volume 2. Trnaslated by briggs, page 468.

This conclusively proves that both first and second invasions occurred in 1461. Do you still want me to create another article? Avenger2000 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You cannot modify the infobox in such a way. The whole article was dedicated to the campaign of 1461, where the Gajapatis phased defeat, and retreated towards their territories to resist the Jaunpur invasion. They later invaded the Bahmani Kingdom where they were engaged in war with the Malwa Sultanate. So there is two invasions. The infobox information is based upon the first invasion, so do the whole article. You can add further information in the aftermath section, but the infobox is dedicated to the war where Muhibullah and Kapilendra fought. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And please. Don't revert again for your own good. It will get you blocked for edit warring as you've already broken 3rr. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Now I've given proof that both happened in 1461. Therefore certainly my point is valid. Why cant i write that in infobox? If the name of the article is "Gajapati invasion of Bidar" not "First Gajapati invasion of Bidar". It is unfair to show only a part of the invasion and not the rest. Invasions don't happen in one go.

If you have issue with that then why dont you create two parts in the same infobox and mention both the things. I'm ok with that. It will clear all doubts. Truth must be told not half truth.

Please don't threaten me of edit block just to show half truth. I've done everything in good faith with all valid references. Let the admin decide what is factually true and suggest if I should be blocked for giving all correct references and facts which is in sync with the name of the article.

Thanks Avenger2000 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You can clearly see the first section of the talk page of the article where we discuss about disambiguation pages. We can't keep "First" when there is no other articles with the same title present. I am not threatening you about edit warring. It is a policy. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Policy applies to all of us including you. I'm mentioning all sources with references. If doing that is wrong then i dont know what to do. I repeat im not removing the gist of your content and only adding the missing part otherwise whole meaning will change. Both things should be present IMHO.

I think it is possible to add first and second invasion one after another in the same box something like this.

First invasion: Gajapati defeat and retreat

Second invasion: Bahmani defeat and capture of Bidar

We can put "attempt" in place of "invasion" also Avenger2000 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per infobox guidance, we can't make such a thing like that. If you are that sure to create an infobox, and to be added in the same article, add a section named later invasion and create an infobox in the same section. I can create that for you if you insist, and let me know what you think about it. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Let me trythen? Avenger2000 (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If you try, that would be breaking 3rr. I am the author of the article, and didn't initiate the warring. I found a problem here is that From the source [1], it says the Malwa Sultanate Mahmud Khalji captured Bidar during the time of invasion. So how is it possible for the Gajapatis to capture Bidar at the same time? The source is of Oxford, where it doesn't even talks about the Raya of Orissa capturing Bidar during the meantime. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I shared the article just to show the date of invasion.

There can't be just 1 source of anything. Scholara who have specifically dealt with Gajapati dynasty they mention about sources of Gajapati dynasty. It is not necessarily everyone will write every source. That book talks about the Malwa sultanate so why should it mention about Gajapati army. Nonetheless it mentions that Mahmud Shah invaded Bidar because to save people from Gajapati. Avenger2000 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

infact there are Odia source which say Purusottama Deva the son of Kapilendra captured Bidar Fort. He did this likely when Kapilendra was the king and when he was the crown prince. That Odia source was discovered later so scholars have not used it in the old books. There are new books which talk about it. I'm yet to get those new books though. Avenger2000 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gajapati invasion of Bidar. 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. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:33, 26 April 2024 (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. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)