Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 1 August 2013

Mamama29

Just offering my humble opinion. The user's edit from June (which you pointed out on their talk page) strongly suggests that it's a block evasion account. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies--why does that suggest block evasion? I thought it was that someone was reverting his edits, and he was bitter about being reverted, and wanted people to stop. Are you seeing something else, or familiar with some history there? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just figured that "I'm editing, fuck you Misplaced Pages" suggests that Misplaced Pages banned the editor from editing, and now he's editing in defiance of that. Considering Mamama29's attitude, I wouldn't call this assumption far fetched. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So... am I completely wrong here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, but why would he suddenly wait to make that announcement until about a month after starting to edit? And I think my explanation is more likely. Look at , which came a couple of minutes before, and was of course rapidly reverted. I think he got pissed because something he thinks is important (episode titles) were deleted, so out of spite he/she vandalized the page. This strike me much more as an immature editor who wants to get his own way, and, when thwarted, lashes out. That's also consistent with the formatting changes he's been doing now that keep getting reverted.

Is a certain sense, though, it doesn't matter much. Whether the user's a returning problem or a new one, his/her behavior is so bad that he/she'll likely end up indef'd soon anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

...aaaaaaaand he's back. Indef, you said? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Soon, not immediately. If I jump from a one day block to an indef for simple edit warring/disruption (i.e., not personal attacks or things that are super bad) I'lll get in trouble. I blocked for a week this time. One possibility is that during the last 24 hour block they didn't even try to edit (just didn't come to WP then--this person doesn't seem to be an every day editor); at 1 week, we can hope they'll see we're serious. Or not. Either way, the next block for the same behavior will be indefinite. Thanks for letting me know, and, of course, notify me again in a week if it resumes, as the only page I'm watching is that user's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo

Hi, Qwyrxian. I didn't fully understand you statement on "Unambiguously". I mean when I do a name search on Google, I get large amounts of hits for several names, yet the others I can't find same numbers. As in these names are used in a very lesser extent than the others and the rations are close to 1:1000. Need your view on this ! Cossde (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thx Cossde (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We are back to where we where in Oct 2012. Really need your input. Thx Cossde (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hi fellow editor, could you caste your experienced eye over Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Damdami Taksal and a few other Sikh related articles I'm looking at. The amount of flannel and refernces I have to keep removing that fail WP:Reliable is rising to epic proportions. Thanks SH 08:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these revisions. I think WP:Competence is definitely a possible issue. ThanksSH 06:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't see what's wrong with that revision. I mean, yeah, the grammar isn't great, but that's true for lots of our editors outside of inner circle countries. Can you tell me more specifically what I should be seeing?

As for a more general look, I'll try to start in somewhere between a few days and few weeks. I'm in a busy period for my job, and it leaves me with less time on WP and, more importantly, less mental energy to handle tasks more complicated than patrolling my watchlist or handling routine admin tasks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with sourcing and WP:Reliable. For example, on the Damdami Taksal most academics like Oberoi and Eleanor Nisbett can't find research into the existence of the organisation when it claims to have existed. Only the website of the organisation confirms this. Allso, overtly long sentences and changes of sentences from Sikh Khalistan movement to Sikh freedom movement (the usual WP:Weasel you get on these articles. I understand the patrolling but. I haven't had much time of late, and that's why I am horrified when I come back, how much articles degrade. I have now come to the conclusion that there maybe a WP:Competence issue as well, with one editor in particular. ThanksSH 11:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am from Canada and I consider myself to write objectively and fair including all the details necessary for a neutral view; I also cite various different sources extensively to ensure that I am writing accurate information. The user Sikh-history has been bugging me and reverting back months of work, leaving behind lots of grammar, formatting, removal of referenced content, etc he first claimed I made this or that wp: violation but then after I kept proving him wrong he began criticizing my grammar. Now his recent reversion of the Sikh page is quite absurd and he continues to degrading various pages leaving others to clean up after him. His arguments include saying such things as the Damdami Taksal Rehat Maryada is not a significant source for getting information about the Damdami Taksal Rehate Maryada. He has previously been accused of distorting sikh history and making non neutral one sided articles by many different users other than myself, eg the Diet in Sikhism page where he removed all the Sikh quotes from the Guru Granth Sahib that criticized eating meat. He continues to attack me personally rather than deal with the issue which I would say is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had a penny of being accused of distorting Sikh-history, I'd be a millionaire. Interesting how here you stopped short of a 3rd revert. Read WP:Game my friend. Thanks SH 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

SH's reversion looks correct to me: it wasn't grammar problems that he was reverting, it was changes in basic, factual information, the removal of proper wikilinks, and formatting. As for the points you raise above...yes, in fact, the removal of quotations from a specific guru are probably an improvement, because such quotations are not independent, nor are they necessary representative of the whole of the religion. What we need--what we always need on Misplaced Pages--are secondary sources, independent of the religion, that analyze the religion as a whole. We can use primary sources some times, but we should generally minimize their use.

I'm going to revert you on Sikh, and then you'll need to discuss your suggested changes on the article talk page (not a discussion I'll be involved in). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel Ban

Thank you for the information:

You write:-

I assume you will level, as you mentioned it at AN

Um, really? I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.

You write:-

the whole point of me closing this and issuing the ban is that I have not investigated the matter in great detail.

At least you are honest. Such an admission in my profession would lead you to the exit very quickly.

To support your position, you write:-

my purpose here is simply to enact the very clear consensus of both involved and uninvolved editors in that discussion.

No, what you did was determine there was a majority of some sort from most who had never contributed to thermal articles. Whereas Wiki policy says:-

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.

and :-

Many closures are based upon consensus. Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor/administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closing editor/administrator must read the arguments presented.

Which you have just said you did not do.

Recently the Misplaced Pages Admin. announced that they were losing editors, apparently without understanding why. Well, on thermal physics they have just ditched one who has more to offer to Misplaced Pages than Misplaced Pages has to him. The reason should be staring you in the face, but, like General Motors, you are following a set of rules that result in people departing, true?

Finally, what does this mean:-

When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted?

So I hereby announce in all seriousness that "I contest your action"!

How do I do that?

Have a nice day.--Damorbel (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) --Damorbel (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an administrative action; it was simply an assessment of the consensus of a community discussion. Part of the condition of the ban is that you can't appeal if for 6 months. I suppose you could try to see if Arbcom (the Arbitration Committee, an elected body on Misplaced Pages that's kind of the "last resort" for behavioral matters) would override the community (something they generally don't do, but I guess you could ask). Or, I guess you could argue to Arbcom that I hadn't accurately assessed the community consensus...but since almost no one objected, that would be a tough sell as well. Anyway, if you want to try, there's an email address for Arbcom you can use at WP:UNBAN. Oh, and, finally, User: Jimbo Wales has always said that he is willing to be a place of last resort, and he technically holds the "authority" to override both the community and Arbcom; if you want to talk to him, just start a discussion at User Talk:Jimbo Wales. Just make sure that if you do so, you only discuss the ban/how it was enacted/etc.: any discussion of the actual content dispute would itself be a violation of your ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Damorbel, Qwyrx has reviewed WP:CONSENSUS very well, and the topic ban was quite clearly defined by the community. There is, indeed, no reason to "contest" it - as it would be contested to the same community that just enacted this topic ban. Qwyrx most certainly did not mess up their reading of the community decision, and the topic ban is valid. Yes, this could have clearly been avoided if you had chosen to edit according to community norms ... you have outright refused to do so. It's unfortunate that we cannot trade knowledge for behaviour - the two are interlinked closely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I missed the final round of the AN discussion where the length of the topic ban was being discussed, so I'm going to say here that the indefinite length (already decided) is appropriate. Damorbel has participated little in constructive editing. His main engagement(s) on Misplaced Pages have been on greenhouse effect, climate change, and then thermodynamics. And in all of these he has shown unhelpful approaches, meaning they are outside the goals of the five pillars. As I have seen mentioned in some AE discussions, before his indefinite topic ban is lifted, Damorbel needs to show good 'pedia building in one or more areas outside his topic ban. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel might be missing the concept that "Indefinite" is not the same as "infinite" - as you say, once he's proved his ability to work within the norms, rules, and boundaries, he may apply for a removal/reduction of his restrictions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to request that the topic ban be amended to say, "other than in their own user space". The reason for this is that User:Damorbel is an expert on thermodynamics and could make contributions, but has not learned how to work with others on the subject. Apteva (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a request would have to be approved by the community, at a new discussion at WP:AN. Such a request would be highly unusual, and, in my opinion, would hurt Damorbel. This is because it would essentially encourage him to carry on the same sorts of behaviors, except only in his user space. That's not moving him forward to the point where he can be a seen as a constructive editor on this topic, and thus make it less likely for the ban to be lifted in the future. Furthermore, it will inevitably result in (possibly unfair) accusations against any editor talking with him and then subsequently editing, as they'll be accused of editing on behalf of a banned user. But, again, this is all in the abstract; if the community thinks there is a specific benefit to allowing him to continue on this topic in his userspace, I would certainly modify the ban wording accordingly. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the community asked for the topic ban from talk:heat, but at least one editor involved apparently thought this meant they could still discuss the topic on their own user talk page, so in defining the extent of the topic ban I would not think it should be a problem. It is pretty common for editors to be able to discuss topics they are topic banned from in their own user space. I am not going to bring it up at AN, but it can be brought up if and when they ask for a removal of the topic ban. As to proxy editing, that would only be an issue if they said, for example, change entropy to enthalpy in such and such paragraph, and the editor doing that had no clue what either was or if it was an improvement or a dis-improvement, which is why anyone doing such an edit would be sanctioned (unless they personally knew that it was a correct change). On the other hand, if Damorbel noticed that someone had edited an article to say that the melting point of water at atmospheric pressure is 32° C, almost every editor would be able to verify that should have been F instead of C (or more likely, 0 instead of 32), and would welcome learning of that error. Apteva (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, to Damorbel, I just re-read your points above, and realize I didn't express myself so well. You accused me of not reading the arguments well; that's actually incorrect--I read every single comment, including yours, posted at the WP:AN discussion. What I meant is that I didn't go back through every single one of the actual discuss on Talk:Heat and other article talk pages. I glanced at some, and, given that both involved and uninvolved editors said the same things about your behavior there, and it was consistent with what I saw, I saw the claims raised against you had merit and were consistent with our policies. So I did my due dilligence as an admin, but since we're very much not supposed to be "super-voting", the point is not to review every action you've ever taken, but, rather, to review the consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

I have commented on your query on the talk page of Shanta Rani Sharma. A notable academic work should and would have been reviewed in academia far earlier than five years after publication. --Zananiri (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent the article to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at this as well, created by the same user. Six lines about the subject, followed by a dozen about his illustrious family - http://en.wikipedia.org/Girija_Shankar_Sharma#Co-Edited_works-- This one is longer. but just decribes the subject's career. I can't see any notability per Wiki, really, just name-dropping. http://en.wikipedia.org/Bhanu_Prakash_SharmaZananiri (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On the first one, I've tagged it for notability; the main question is if those works are widely cited; I've left a note on the article's talk page. On the second one...I'm not sure; being a full Professor helps, have been a Course Director helps...but it's still not quite there yet. Feel free to take whatever action you think is needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Janjua talk page

Hi, I'd already collapsed one version of this at Talk:Janjua. They left me the not uncommon pleasantries on my talk page (since reverted). I'm loathe to collapse again and would appreciate the thoughts of others. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted on the article talk page. If they want to 1) play nice and 2) write succinctly, then they can join the party. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Avatar

I get the impression that Yoonadue is an Avatar... (no link; the new notification-system will also notify him. Canvassing has been made very easy; just drop a name on a third persons talk page, and the person in question will also be notified). How does a new Wikipedian know about spam and full citations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By "Avatar", do you mean "sockpuppet"? If so, who do you think it is a sockpuppet of? As for your other question, yes, those are somewhat unusual things for a new user to say...but notice that he has misused the word "spam", since he removed a source in one part of an article but not another. It is possible that this is a previous editor returning, or it could be an IP editor who's just now become a named editor...but is there anything terribly wrong with the edits? Yes, the removal of the source was wrong, but that could be simple error. Is this editor repeating problems that a previous problem editor had done? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing terribly wrong. I also wouldn't know who it could be. But editing at India-related articles is not doing the best for "assuming good faith", because of all the "discussions" and edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But turning "wrong". I guess you're following the Hinduism-page; have a look at his argumentation, both the edit-summaries and the talkpage. Either incompetent (which I don't believe), or searching for arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your work - thank you!

I hope it's Ok for me to say how much I appreciate your work in moderating the disruptions by 75. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

article on huna people

hi i would like to bring to your notice article about Huna people in which i suspect vandalism as it creates confusion with another article named White Huns also named as Hephthalite Empire, people are directly copying and pasting content from white huns to huna people article but when both are different topic and article. i request you to please look into this matter and resolve it. Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, before we get to that, are you using both User:Sushikumar and User:Sushilkumarmishra? If so, you need to immediately stop that, and use only one account, per WP:SOCK. Second, there was just one user, about 4 months ago, who copy an pasted that info (I don't know if it was from another WP article, or from off WP, but the bracketed numbers made it obvious it was copied). So the solution was easy: just remove it, because regardless of whether or not the two groups are the same (something about which I know absolutely nothing), copying things into Misplaced Pages is always unacceptable. If you see a copyright violation, just remove it immediately; you don't need to tag it or notify a bunch of other editors. Is there any other action you wanted to happen there? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

hi User:Sushilkumarmishra and User:Sushilmishra both are my ids but not User:Sushilkumar i have create new 1 because i was unable to log in using my current id. moving on about those edits so with your permission i can remove those copy-past thing on Huna people artical because if i remove it now then some 1 might undo it and i might undo again which might lead to incident which took place on artical IndiaSushilkumarmishra (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

thnx for the help there, and about two ids rest assure that its is not being misused i have been using[REDACTED] since 2006 and started editing since 2007 and i can say you a lot this articals have acctually changed and changed in the sense lot of misinformation is stuffed so i request you to please have look at many of the artical dealing with history and miltary Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as long as from now on you only use one account, that's fine; just put a note on your current user page that states that you used to use the other account. As for Huna people...well, yeah, that's what happens on Misplaced Pages. People add bad stuff. We (editors like you and I) remove it. We or others add good stuff, and then other users build from that. If a user were to re-add copyrighted info, we'd block that user very soon; if it was done by unregistered users (IPs), we'd protect the pages if needed.

As for your more general concern...yes, Misplaced Pages has a lot of articles that need work. We've got over 4 million articles, and at least 80% of them need significant amounts of work. You're welcome to start working on any of the ones that interest you. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Kashmiri anon is back

65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) is back doing their daft stuff on talk pages and removing valid See also links on Kashmir. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And 108.29.95.63 (talk · contribs) is obviously the same person but their contribution are now five days old. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked 65 for a month; I'll leave 108 for until it starts up again. I've added a few of the targets to my watchlist, which might enable me to see them as they happen and block faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

help

hi I have added recently template of history of south asia and indian subcontinent to relavent topics as in like topics mentioned in that template but there is this 1 user User:Pied Hornbill who has been on reverting it back stating reason in few as template dumping and in other as too many templates....so I want to knw is there any Misplaced Pages policy about too many template or template dumping because I think those articles are related to south asia and indian subcontinent so they should have history of south asia template attached and that template is this

History of South Asia
Outline Palaeolithic (2,500,000–250,000 BC) Madrasian culture Soanian culture Neolithic (10,800–3300 BC) Bhirrana culture (7570–6200 BC) Mehrgarh culture (7000–3300 BC) Edakkal culture (5000–3000 BC) Chalcolithic (3500–1500 BC) Anarta tradition (c. 3950–1900 BC) Ahar-Banas culture (3000–1500 BC) Pandu culture (1600–750 BC) Malwa culture (1600–1300 BC) Jorwe culture (1400–700 BC) Bronze Age (3300–1300 BC) Indus Valley Civilisation (3300–1300 BC)  – Early Harappan culture (3300–2600 BC)  – Mature Harappan culture (2600–1900 BC)  – Late Harappan culture (1900–1300 BC) Vedic Civilisation (2000–500 BC)  – Ochre Coloured Pottery culture (2000–1600 BC)  – Swat culture (1600–500 BC) Iron Age (1500–200 BC) Vedic Civilisation (1500–500 BC)  – Janapadas (1500–600 BC)  – Black and Red ware culture (1300–1000 BC)  – Painted Grey Ware culture (1200–600 BC)  – Northern Black Polished Ware (700–200 BC) Pradyota dynasty (799–684 BC) Haryanka dynasty (684–424 BC) Three Crowned Kingdoms (c. 600 BC – AD 1600) Maha Janapadas (c. 600–300 BC) Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) Ror Dynasty (450 BC – 489 AD) Shaishunaga dynasty (424–345 BC) Nanda Empire (380–321 BC) Macedonian Empire (330–323 BC) Maurya Empire (321–184 BC) Seleucid India (312–303 BC) Sangam period (c. 300 BC – c. 300 AD) Pandya Empire (c. 300 BC – AD 1345) Chera Kingdom (c. 300 BC – AD 1102) Chola Empire (c. 300 BC – AD 1279) Pallava Empire (c. 250 AD – AD 800) Maha-Megha-Vahana Empire (c. 250 BC – c. AD 500) Parthian Empire (247 BC – AD 224) Middle Kingdoms (230 BC – AD 1206) Satavahana Empire (230 BC – AD 220) Kuninda Kingdom (200 BC – AD 300) Mitra Dynasty (c. 150 – c. 50 BC) Shunga Empire (185–73 BC) Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BC – AD 10) Kanva Empire (75–26 BC) Indo-Scythian Kingdom (50 BC – AD 400) Indo-Parthian Kingdom (AD 21 – c. 130) Western Satrap Empire (AD 35–405 ) Kushan Empire (AD 60–240) Bharshiva Dynasty (170–350) Nagas of Padmavati (210–340) Sasanian Empire (224–651) Indo-Sassanid Kingdom (230–360) Vakataka Empire (c. 250 – c. 500) Kalabhras Empire (c. 250 – c. 600) Gupta Empire (280–550) Kadamba Empire (345–525) Western Ganga Kingdom (350–1000) Kamarupa Kingdom (350–1100) Vishnukundina Empire (420–624) Maitraka Empire (475–767) Huna Kingdom (475–576) Rai Kingdom (489–632) Kabul Shahi Empire (c. 500 – 1026) Chalukya Empire (543–753) Maukhari Empire (c. 550 – c. 700) Harsha Empire (606–647) Tibetan Empire (618–841) Eastern Chalukya Kingdom (624–1075) Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) Gurjara-Pratihara Empire (650–1036) Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) Mallabhum kingdom (694–1947) Bhauma-Kara Kingdom (736–916) Pala Empire (750–1174) Rashtrakuta Empire (753–982) Paramara Kingdom (800–1327) Yadava Empire (850–1334) Somavamshi Kingdom (882–1110) Chaulukya Kingdom (942–1244) Western Chalukya Empire (973–1189) Lohara Kingdom (1003–1320) Hoysala Empire (1040–1347) Sena Empire (1070–1230) Eastern Ganga Empire (1078–1434) Kakatiya Kingdom (1083–1323) Zamorin Kingdom (1102–1766) Kalachuris of Tripuri (675–1210) Kalachuris of Kalyani (1156–1184) Chutiya Kingdom (1187–1673) Deva Kingdom (c. 1200 – c. 1300) Late medieval period (1206–1526) Ghaznavid Dynasty (977–1186) Ghurid Dynasty (1170–1206) Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)  – Mamluk Sultanate (1206–1290)  – Khalji Sultanate (1290–1320)  – Tughlaq Sultanate (1320–1414)  – Sayyid Sultanate (1414–1451)  – Lodi Sultanate (1451–1526) Ahom Kingdom (1228–1826) Chitradurga Kingdom (1300–1779) Reddy Kingdom (1325–1448) Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1646) Bengal Sultanate (1352–1576) Garhwal Kingdom (1358–1803) Mysore Kingdom (1399–1947) Gajapati Empire (1434–1541) Ladakh Kingdom (1470–1842) Deccan sultanates (1490–1596)  – Ahmadnagar Sultanate (1490–1636)  – Berar sultanate (1490–1574)  – Bidar Sultanate (1492–1619)  – Bijapur Sultanate (1492–1686)  – Golkonda Sultanate (1518–1687) Keladi Kingdom (1499–1763) Koch Kingdom (1515–1947) Early modern period (1526–1858) Mughal Empire (1526–1858) Sur Empire (1540–1556) Madurai Kingdom (1529–1736) Thanjavur Kingdom (1532–1673) Bhoi dynasty (1541–1804) Bengal Subah (1576–1757) Marava Kingdom (1600–1750) Sikkim Kingdom (1642–1975) Thondaiman Kingdom (1650–1948) Maratha Empire (1674–1818) Sikh Confederacy (1707–1799) Travancore Kingdom (1729–1947) Sikh Empire (1799–1849) Colonial states (1510–1961) Portuguese India (1510–1961) Dutch India (1605–1825) Danish India (1620–1869) French India (1759–1954) Company Raj (1757–1858) British Raj (1858–1947)
National histories Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka
Regional histories Assam Balochistan Bengal Bihar Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Kabul Karnataka Kashmir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Rajasthan Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh Punjab Odisha Sindh South India Tamil Nadu Tibet
Specialised histories Agriculture Architecture Coinage Demographics Dynasties Economy Education Indology Influence on Southeast Asia Language Literature Maritime Metallurgy Military Partition of India Pakistan studies Philosophy Physical culture Religion Science and technology Timeline
v t e

you can find those articles mentioned in this template too....so please look into this matter. and all this articles are related to indian state of Karnataka's history which is part of indian subcontinent and south asia Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a conversation with that user. There's no particular policy on the matter; too many templates is bad, and we don't want a template for every possible way of organizing info, but some may be important. After you were reverted, the best thing you could do would be to start a conversation on the article's talk page, not just revert back to your preferred version.

Also, didn't we just talk about you not using two different accounts? Why are you still using Sushilkumarmishra and Sushilmishra? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

wel tnx for info but on that user talk page you can find tht user has been doing it for long as in like reverting edits made by other users and currently I am using 1 id tht is this 1 and I have mentioned about me having 2 ids in my user page Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Every Country has their negatives all cannot be part of a generic article which could affect the growth or view of other of a country, That is against the country sovereignty. Kindly ignore content wich could affect mass people.