User talk:PadFoot2008/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

Edit summaries

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Emperor of India, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. What is and what is not vandalism is a bit confusing. I had thought that violating talk page consensus without first establishing a new one might be classed as vandalism. I'd be more careful from next time onwards. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 October 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)

Stop your disruptive editing. It's in use. That is all that is required to include it on a disambiguation page. If the definition is not to your liking, then rephrase it. But the entry cannot be removed. DrKay (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

All right. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Union of India. DrKay (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh? You told me to make minor changes without removing. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "The Union of India may refer to the Government of India which represents the Union of India". That is either a patently absurd tautology and self-reference or a misleading statement when coming immediately after the statement that the Union of India refers to the Dominion of India.

A disruptive editor is one who:

1. continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition;
2. asks for sources when they are either not required or obvious or already given;
3. repeatedly disregards objections to edits.

You have continued to edit despite objections, demanded sources despite one being given clearly calling it "the name" of the government, which is unnecessary anyway as it is merely a disambiguation page, and repeatedly disregarded opposition. This entry has existed on the page since the page was created[2], so the consensus until now is to include the entry. The prior consensus holds until consensus is proven to have changed. DrKay (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from India into North India. 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. Please note that you have not copied over the information on the source books and have therefore introduced numerous citation errors in the destination article. Please go back and fix this if you know how. — Diannaa (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. I'll remember next time. Thanks for informing me! PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Expedition to Tibet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Expedition to Tibet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 9 § Expedition to Tibet until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

rajput states under maratha Empire

i can prove it.... Omnikingharsha (talk) 16:52, 12 October 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)

I know I have nothing to do with this but why can’t we just put the flag of the Austrian empire and the old flag of Hungary in the infobox? 2603:8080:3900:170:8984:138:735A:5A19 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow editor. I think this either a case of miscommunication or something else. This is my user talk page and I do not recall ever removing or adding a flag to the Austria-Hungary article page. If you want to suggest something, please create a new section here: Talk:Austria-Hungary. Regards PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hindu Belt?

Have a look at these changes, without discussion. Pinging @Austronesier:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Never in my life, have I ever heard of a "Hindu belt", let alone a "cow belt". And he is an administrator? I'm reverting all his edits. Maybe this requires attention? PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

North India

As you've decided to restore that section could you also fix the very many errors it has? You may need to turn on errors for no target errors, you can find the details here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ActivelyDisinterested, I do plan on fixing and expanding it. I shall look into it. It will done by the latest. Thanks PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Bengal Presidency 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. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor)

Hello, PadFoot2008. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Note of Appreciation and Request for Rectification

That is some great work that you have been doing, the amazing editing of the map of the Indian Empire. But there are a few aberrations and errors in the map edited by you, and i would request you to rectify it on the basis of the map produced under the authority of the Surveyor-General of India in 1915 called "India and Adjacent Countries".

Link: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g7650.ct004259/?r=-0.558,-0.038,2.116,1.008,0 MonsieurPranshu (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Antoni Sułkowski (chancellor)

Hello, PadFoot2008. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Antoni Sułkowski".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)