User talk:PadFoot2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Regarding Tripartite Struggle

Hello @PadFoot2008,could you please explain in the Tripartite Struggle why the referenced edits are removed. based only two sources? The other sources used are from historians and give differe4nt versions, and as point out, there aresome factual discrepancies in the two sources. would you like an arbitration? RegardsMaglorbd (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No content has been removed, only copyedited. If there have been accidental removal of references themselves, you can add the citations back. Also read WP:LEAD. We don't need an absolutely gargantuan lead mentioning every single battle. Just the contenders, reason for conflict and mentioning the victorious power is enough. PadFoot (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PadFoot2008,Thank you for your prompt reply. Can you help me do this properly? The sources I used portrays the struggle as:

1) Vatsaraja takes Kannuj, defeats Dharmapala. Dhruva beats both Vatsaraja and Dharmapala. Dhruva leaves, Dharmapala occupies Kannuj.

2) Nagabhata II takes Kannauj. he then defeats Dharmapala. Govinda III defeats Nagabhata II. Dharmapala againg occupies Kannauj. Here is a major disagreement among the suurces: Dharmapala had died in 810 BC. Nagabhata could not have fought him in 816CE. Most sources agree Nagabhata II defeated Dharmapala, then Govinda beat him. Dharmapala retook Kannauj.

3) The other disagree that Prathiharas occupied Kannauj from 816 CE under Nagabhata II. They are of the opinion, based on new inscriptions found after 1970, that Dharmapala, Devapala and Mahendrapala ruled over Kannauj until 865CE. Mihir Bhoja finally took Kannauj, and Pratiharas ruled the city until 1036 CE. Sailendra Nath Sen, R.C Majumdar, and the other sources support this version, unlike Rima Hooja Syed M.Huq. How Can this be reconciled? maybe a separate section? Please help.Maglorbd (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kannauj might have changed hands a few times between 816 and 865 A.D., there are multiple sources supporting a 816 conquest and declaration of Kannauj as the capital of the Pratiharan king Nagabhata II. It is possible Kannauj might have been lost after this period during the reign of Nagabhata's successors and Bhoja re-conquered the city in 865 A.D.. This can be mentioned in the aftermath section. PadFoot (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sailendra Nath Sen clearly mentions that Nagabhata II conquered Kannauj soon after Govinda's death in 814 A.D., and then immediately afterwards defeated Dharmapala. PadFoot (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PadFoot2008, Thank you. I used alternate version because of the discussion in Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha. Abhinav Publications. p. 177-185. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4. Which sums up views from historians and supports the view that Nagabhatta lost control of Kannauj after defeat by Govinda, Dharmapal recovered the city againg and ruled it until his death in 810 CE, Nagabhatta retook it, maybe in 816 CE only for Devapala to occupy it after Nagabhatta's death. your thought on this? should I put it in the aftermath?Maglorbd (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. You can create an aftermath section, and mention the events after 816 till 865 A.D.. PadFoot (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maglorbd, could you provide quotes from the sources you have provided to show where they mention that the Pratiharas lost Kannauj afterwards? PadFoot (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find sources.

A Journey Through India's Past." Mani, Chandra Mauli ISBN 81-7211-256-4

p22: "Devapala soon established supremacy over Kannauj"

History of Indian Nation" Muzaffer H.

p187: "Devapala forced Nagabhatta II to withdraw."

"Territories and States of India". ISBN 1-85743-148-0.

p162: "Palas installed King in Kannauj.....clung to supremacy under Devapala...before giving way tp Pratiharas."

There is a long discussion on this in the "Dynastic History Of Magadha" By Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha, which compares the inscriptions and grants of Vtsaraja, Nagabhatta II, Mihir Bhoja with those of Pala and Rashtrakuta Kings to construct a possible timeline of the struggle. p180-181 discusses Nagabhata II vs Dharmapala, p175-177 Dhruva and Vatsaraja, p184 mentions Nagabhatta II retaking Kannauj from Devapala c815, and holding it until 833, p185 Devapala retaking Kannauj, Mihir Bhoja taking Kannauj after 860 CE in p 191-192, and Sen, Sailendra Nath, "Ancient Indian History and Civilization" p267, p280. This adds up to Pala control over Kannauj until 865 CE. Also, these sources put the battle of Munger before Nagabhatta II was defeated by Govinda III. Thanks.Maglorbd (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything in Mani (2005). I am not sure if you quoted from it. Boland-Crewe and Lea are not historians. Syed mentions that Nagabhata II permanently transferred his capital to Kannauj. "Devapala forced Nagabhata to withdraw" doesn't necessarily mean a withdrawal from Kannauj. Nagabhata had conquered parts of Gauda until Munger, it is possible the author intends to say that Devapala forced Nagabhata to withdraw from Gauda. Besides I've not heard of any wars between Devapala and Nagabhata II from any historian before. We usually follow the majority consensus among scholars. PadFoot (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PadFoot2008 I have tried to provide the information you requested in the Tripartite Struggle talk page. please have look and let me if anything more.Maglorbd (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle kingdoms of India has been nominated for merging

Category:Middle kingdoms of India has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Indian monarchies has been nominated for merging

Category:Ancient Indian monarchies has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, apologies, if my edits have been problematic, I am not that experienced in CfDs. I would like to ask your opinion here, what do you think about the name "Ancient Indian monarchies"? It seems to be a better and more concise name. PadFoot (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Magadha

When Taking successors of precedors,if one takes Magadha it's hard to take in account of the dates ,as magadha did not have a ruling dynasty after the collapse of kanva

It only got a dynasty again after 100s of years , the Guptas.

We can either make a new page for "Restored Magadha" for concentration on Guptas ,Later Gupta dynasties,

Or we can just create a Heading in the Magadha article itself ,but it would be harder to link it in successors /precedors @PadFoot2008 JingJongPascal (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Malwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avanti.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ixudi and edit warring citation

Hi.

I've see on Ixudi's talk page that you cited her in August.

She has again been edit warring at Padmasambhava. Instead of bringing her personal POV to Talk, she refuses to communicate there. Furthermore, I've received threats and accusations on my Talk page, which to me usually indicate the culpability of the person issuing the threats/accusations.

I made a few tentative edits that corrected factual errors and hostile POV last night, which were not again reverted. Good. I plan on continuing to bring the page back to a reputable bio. I don't know when the massive and poor quality edits were made to the page, but I remember it being at least decent.

If the war begins again, I guess I need to officially warn her, then proceed to a notice board. Is this correct? Metokpema (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Metokpema, I do not know what this is all about, but I'll provide general advice. If an editor is editwarring then you can simply place an editwarring notice {{subst:uw-3rr}} on his talk page. If the editor performs an undo or revert more than 3 times (i.e, 4 times or more) within 24 hours, then he would've broken WP:3RR, and you can lodge a complaint on WP:AN/3RR to bring this to the administrators attention, and the editor would usually get temporarily blocked if there has been a violation of 3RR. On an ending note, I would request both you and @Ixudi to participate on a talk page discussion and try to not resort to edit warring. PadFoot (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Ixudi is participating in the discussion on the talk page, which is good. PadFoot (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick ;) Metokpema (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you. I included you since you had some previous involvement. Metokpema (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

@PadFoot2008 Per discussion I have renamed article but tell whether new title is adequate or not.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM close at Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages

Hi, you close only states a decision not to move. Would you please explain how you have assessed consensus in reaching this decision. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable request. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had been a bit busy lately.

Three of the editors in support of the move had put forward the argument that per MOS:TITLECAPS and MOS:CAPS, "late Middle Ages" and "early Middle Ages" should be used as ngrams provided showed that capitalisation was not consistently used for the above phrases. Two other editors argued that late and early shouldn't be capitalised as they are adjectives. One editor provided no argument. However, among those in opposition to the move, six supported the argument that "Early/High/Late Middle Ages" were all terms for periods of history and hence should be capitalised. One other editor provided a list of sources that used capitalisation for the terms, while another opposed the inconsistent scheme "early/High/late". The consensus generally seemed to lean towards capitalisation. PadFoot (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Per WP:RMCI: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Also, per WP:DISCARD: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Your assessment indicates that only comments in support of the move were P&G based along with substantiating evidence. Those opposed are largely expressing unsubstantiated personal opinions - ie I think periods of history should be capped or I don't like the mixed case. One editor did not present a list of sources per se but a list of style guides. They concluded On balance it's a bit of a hodge podge - ie there is no consensus in style guides that caps are necessary and therefore, in terms of MOS:CAPS, we should lowercase. That editor chose to oppose in anycase though they also said: I can't say I'm especially fussed as to which approach we land on. If these were periods of history that should be capitalised, this would be reflected in sources and in turn, in the ngram data. The votes may have leant toward capitalisation but that is not how we determine consensus. On balance, I think it would be quite incorrect to argue a consensus against as you have and there are inconsistencies in the reasoning. The mentioned of MOS:TITLECAPS referred to an article about a book Framing the Early Middle Ages, which was struck from the RM because of the comment by the editor. The prevailing P&G is WP:AT, which invokes WP:NCCAPS, which in turn invokes MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the last point, I mentioned MOS:TITLECAPS on accident, I had meant WP:LOWERCASE, I had messed up the shortcuts. I don't think anyone in the RM expressed their personal opinions, neither those who said that "early/late" were adjectives nor those who said that they were part of terms for historical periods. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it is reasonably evident that the terms are adjectives and it is also reasonably evident that we would not usually capitalise an adjective even when it precedes a noun phrase that might normally be capitalised (eg late Christmas Day). However, we have this statement made directly or referred to by others, Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages are both terms for periods of history. They should be fully capitalised or not at all, as in late middle ages. The first is a true statement but the second is made without reference to any authority to substantiate the claim. It is ipso facto a personal opinion. What is more, it is contradicted by evidence of usage in sources (the ngram). Even I find the ngrams unconvincing - not every usage refers to the period is unsubstantiated and therefore a personal opinion that was refuted by contexturalising the ngram. My feeling is that "Early", "High", and "Late" (with a 1000–year spread) are distinct eras enough to be worthy of capitalisation is clearly framed as an opinion (my feeling) but it is also an agrument to capitalise for significance but, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS (the first section in the body of MOS:CAPS) tells us that we don't capitalise on WP for that reason. [A]nd are how I mostly see them in sources is an unsubstantiated claim and, while one will see this done in sources, evidence of usage in an aggregate of sources (the ngram) tells us this is not consistently done. The opposing arguments are largely unsubstantiated opinion which flatly contradict established P&G and the aggregate evidence of usage in sources per that P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

@PadFoot2008 I noticed you havent replied to my comment about Magadha Empire.Please reply so that a consensus be established.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Mauryan Empire & Magadha

I had a question from you, I believe you would know about this, what was the "Eastern Mauryan Empire" I saw it in a book about extents of empires.

Is it referring to perhaps Shunga Empire?

Or Nanda?

And also will you be working on Second Magadhan Empire? JingJongPascal (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read about it a while back when researching on the topic. It is a hypothesis among some scholars that apparently after his death, Ashoka's empire was divided into two halves by Kunala and Dasharatha — the Eastern Mauryan Empire and the Western Mauryan Empire. The Western Mauryan Empire fell to the Indo-Greeks while the Eastern Mauryan Empire survived. However, this has no evidence and is only a hypothesis. I am working on the article on the Second Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Work later over it first reply my ping because its a very important topic for Indian history Talk:Maurya Empire.Wake UP! Edasf (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Edasf, I apologise but I am not much of a contributor to that particular page. I have seen (but not read in whole or extensively participated in) the discussions regarding the map which took place from 4 August till 22 September 2023, which I can link to here:

PadFoot (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then Edasf (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to check the sources of the "map with holes" just once.

I don't have a problem with the map itself, but the sources.

The sources are erroneous , it says names of alot of historians

And their citations refer to the SAME BOOK, which is not even written by these authors, just check for yourself once. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these historians are cited by this source? Maybe you can read the source once to see if they are cited or mentioned in the text. PadFoot (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already have.

Romila does mention about "isolated areas" but leaves out whether they were independent or autonomous,and the areas mentioned by her are vague

Eg - "Central India"

She does not talk about the "adminstration" of the imperial authority in those regions, hence can't be taken as a source. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler talks in detail and I see nearly a dozen quotations and rough maps provided by him here: Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#RfC about the lead map of the Maurya Empire article. Also take a look at the discussions I linked above. PadFoot (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I read further, romila does mention them being relativly liberated but again does not mention the areas

The map provided in the book itself doesnt have any "holes"

The map provided looks more like the "maximum extent map" JingJongPascal (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is the citations provided by

Author of Standard Mauryan Empire.png

do check them out once.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.png JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still support idea of a new map.Romila's interpretation arent very detailed I doubt taking it as Source Edasf (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She mentions "*relative* liberated" from central metropolitan State, mentions the region as eastern Central India (Kalinga) and South india.

Not any other region JingJongPascal (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map in wiki itself has many "liberated" regions JingJongPascal (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I cant understand your second comment. Edasf (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I said to not take her as source for defining regions.Having a map which shades core regions and autonomous differently is far better. Edasf (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so basically the map made by PadFoot? JingJongPascal (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh? He created wheres that give me link please. Edasf (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Magadha_Empire_250_BC.png JingJongPascal (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read more about Eastern Mauryan Empire, and *to me* it appears absolutely baseless and makes the least sense JingJongPascal (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 also any idea about an imperial emblem we could maybe add on the Magadhan Empire article?

Ashoka's wheel can be contended as a imperial emblem atleast during his reign JingJongPascal (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what emblem or banner the Mauryans could've used. Usually, emblems of ancient entities are discovered using coins or inscriptions, or descriptions by contemporaries. For example, the emblem of the Achaemenids, was reconstructed using a plaque found in the capital city and contemporary descriptions of it, and recolored using a coloured near-contemporary marble graphic showing the war between the Macedonians (Alexander) and the Persians (Achaemenids). I think it is unlikely that the Chakra or the lion capital was used as the imperial emblem, as we lack evidence for the use of these specific symbols solely. The chakra was a part of the lion capital, and the (four-)lion capital was a part of set of other Ashokan capitals including the bull, the (one-)lion, and so on. Perhaps, historians will discover something new in the new future, I shall look further into it. PadFoot (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Discuss first"?

you reverted my edits on Mauryan Empire where I simply added sources.

Fowler has done the same, I have provided more sources and nothing else. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler didn't add sources, he added links to maps it appears. Your sources could be disputed, and were added in a very disorderly manner. PadFoot (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Patialputra

It seems like, after the collapse of Magadhan Empire Under Kanva dynasty,

Some petty dynasties ruled Magadhan and Patialputra, historians have named this as "Principality of Patialputra", it was independent till the Guptas took over the throne and formed the Restored Magadhan Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JingJongPascal (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 , I have tried to find whether any independent kingdom ruled the Magadhan principality after kanvas.

I haven't been able to find any independent dynasty.

Maybe you know something? I have taken a look into several books and found nothing.

The knowledge of Magadhan rulers between kanva and gupta is very scarce it seems.

Except them being vassals of Kushans, Mitra, Kalinga, I found nothing. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal, which is sadly the problem in this case. I myself sought to create such an article, but we unfortunately lack much sources on it. However, an article could still be created out of whatever information we have and we could include Sri Gupta and Ghatotkach in it as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 I was about to mention Sri Gupta and Ghatotkach! But are we sure that their "cheifdom" was native or atleast primarily the Principality of Patialputra?

Anyways, I have made a draft where I have added some basic things you could help and check it out.

Principality of Pataliputra JingJongPascal (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did rule from Pataliputra. PadFoot (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, were they native to the Pataliputra? JingJongPascal (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the Guptas is uncertain, but a good section of scholars consider them to be natives of Magadha. PadFoot (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i see, although I don't think we should publish the article just out of the things we have right now.

I have created a draft, but I will try to find more sources because the article will probably not be accepted otherwise.

There was already so much criticism about Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire , even though they have alot of sources. I will look into more books JingJongPascal (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal, could you please remove the Gupta mentions from the Magadhan Empire article, please? The article should not list two different polities with a 300-year gap between them as a single entity. Even scholars don't consider them a single and instead call the Guptas, the Second Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't included them? Infact I also made the "300 gap" argument against Nxcrypto and others who wanted to combine.

But yes I will remove them. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways , I have removed all mentions JingJongPascal (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I know you made the argument against including them. Only Nxcrypto wanted to include them. PadFoot (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.5896/page/n35/mode/2up?q=kanva&view=theater

Page no. 36

You were correct.

There is absolutely no record between kanvas and guptas. Absolutely none JingJongPascal (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008

Principality of Pataliputra i have created the article, feel free to contribute JingJongPascal (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point provided by Regents for the deletion of this article

This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) - RegentsPark

What?? I can understand the article may not be most notable and a Stub, but what are these points? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal, Upon further research, it appears to me that Magadha came under the rule of various neighbouring kingdoms and empires after the fall of the Kanvas and it didn't exist as an independent entity then. It appears that it only came back to existence as an independent entity in 240 AD under the rule of Sri Gupta. So, the "principality of Pataliputra" existed from 240 AD to 320 AD, before which it formed a part of neighbouring kingdoms. PadFoot (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was under rule of Mitras and Kalinga during 20 BCs , after that it most probably existed as a independent kingdom under influence or vassal of other kingdoms. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for its existence as an independent kingdom. PadFoot (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then which kingdom ruled it?

Only Kalinga and Mitra dynasty are confirmed ones. After that there is a empty history of 200 years without knowing who ruled the region. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rai dynasty edits today

Good day to you. Could you look into edits here??? Certain user is adding as references Burjor Avari - who was not a Phd (and therefore not a scholar in true sense one can conclude) and Gobind Khushalani - who shows up nowhere as a researcher of repute as references for the Rais being Buddhists and for the claim that the Hindu Chachs "deceived" the Rais into losing their kingdom. 117.203.223.235 (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages

Please dont send warning messages when I didnt did an edit war.At first I reverted your removal because you provided inaccurate edit summary then on MMaurya Empire Rawn did a mass revert so I reverted him it was me only who reverted my map per talk page please clear before sending someone warning msg. Edasf «Talk» 08:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a necessity per WP:3RR. PadFoot (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No its not a formality be performed for formalities shake. Edasf «Talk» 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdhan Empire

Hi @PadFoot2008 I was going through the Magdhan Empire page created by you, and at that time I saw that it was nominated for deletion, but before voting, I want to ask you as you have created the article. How would you explain Maurya Empire and Magdhan Empire, and prior to that, Nanda Empire, basically one state with two different names and articles? What I think is that Maurya and Nanda should be changed to dynasties instead of empires.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you. Nandas and Mauryas were dynasties of the Magadhan Empire. There is currently an ongoing RM at Nanda Empire to move to Nanda dynasty, if you'd like to participate. PadFoot (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foreign_relations_of_the_Magadhan_Empire JingJongPascal (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal, I apologise but per the Wikipedia policy WP:CANVASSING, you are not allowed to ping other editors in AfDs. I cannot participate now, or else you shall be accused of canvassing and my vote will be discounted. PadFoot (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like, there has been a favourable deletion on your Magadhan Empire article, maybe try putting in some more sources? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire To Dynasty

I have changed From Haryankas to Shungas to a dynastic appearance by using "Infobox dynasty",

But now for Maurya, I am sure everyone in the world will oppose that, and considering there is already a war going on in maurya article for the map, do you think it is worth it? Or atleast worth trying? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal, I think you should restore Infobox country, it presents a better appearance. Maps are pretty important in these cases. See Qing dynasty or Ming dynasty for example. PadFoot (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Ming and Qing, they dont have a "country" article JingJongPascal (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]