Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pratyush (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of WikiProject Bihar, I am inviting you to join our WikiProject. WikiProject Bihar is a project, aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to the state of Bihar. If you are not a member already, you can add your name here. If are already a member, disregard this message. Thank you. -- Pratyush (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
A page you started (David Brainard Spooner) has been reviewed!
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indo-Greek Kingdom into Greek conquests in 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see by your addition to Antiochus I Soter that you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vasudeva Krishna coin
Hi Patliputra. I removed the image you added to Krishna because it cannot be verified as being Krishna. Please provide a direct link to the image on cng coins so that it is clear that the image is that of Krishna. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, check out this video on how to easily cite sources in a structured manner. Use of the sfn template will also help in avoiding duplicates and streamlining the reference section. Adding quotations becomes easier as well. Just an FYI.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously repeating myself here. But please consider switching to structured citations. Just looking at the myriad "Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, John Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, Marshall, John, 1918", "John Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi, 1918", etc. in Sanchi is sending my brain into a tizzy. Then there are the typo'd references such as "Marhall, "A Guide to Sanchi"" and "Epigraphia Indice" … Such occurrences can be drastically reduced through the use of {{sfn}} and similar systems. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, it looks like you're filling in the fields by hand and creating extra work for yourself :) All you should need to do in the Cite toolbar dialog is to paste the URL of the book in the URL box and then click on the magnifying glass next to it. This should auto-fill all the available fields. You can do the same thing with the ISBN field.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for all your various improvements to so many articles. However, why not simply provide attribution or a note in the edit summary (as explained by Diannaa above) when you copy text from one article to another? This is just one of many recent additions where you reuse content (from Yaudheyas in this case) without proper attribution. Please also cite sources for the many images of coins that you're adding to article; even cngcoins.com, if applicable, is fine. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Hormizd II Kushanshah) has been reviewed!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as needing additional references. Not easy for a subject from this period though.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Thank you for creating and expanding a significant number of pages on the rulers of Bactria and Gandhara. You're input, including your excellent coin-derived reliefs, has covered a big knowledge gap in wikipedia for a fascinating time in history, from the Hellenistic states, to the Kushanshahs, to the last of the Hunic emperors! alx_bio 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta) has been reviewed!
Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. पाटलिपुत्र, thanks for creating Vishnu nicolo seal!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for contributing this article. Please consider more sources and references for verification.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
is sandrocottus chandragupta of maurya dynasty or chandragupta of gupta dynasty?
it seems that you have good knowledge of Magadha empire and Gupta empire.please give some guidance regarding the following. which I want to add in Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty
In the middle of the 19th century MaxMuller for the first time termed the identity of sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as the sheet anchor of Indian history. It is being challenged since its inception. M.troyer[1] was the first to oppose it in the letter to prof.MaxMullar and since then a number of scholars like T.S.Narayana Sastry[2], N. Jagannatharao[3], M.Krishnamachariar[4], Kota Venkatachalam[5], Pandit Bhagavadatta, D.s Trivedi[6] and other are opposing it in their books and articles.[7]According to Kota Venkatachelam
The greatest mistake that has ever been committed in the field of the Chronology of Ancient India-nay the greatest harm that has ever been done to the cause and progress of the ancient Indian History and Literature-is the so called identification of Sandrocottus, Sandrocyptus, of the Greek writers of Alexander’s history with Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Maurya Dynasty, and of the so-called identification of Xandrames or Andramen with Nanda, the father of the said Chandragupta Maurya.
Greek writers mentioned along with sandrocottus two other names Xandrames his predecessor and sandrocyptus his successor. wantonly they ignored the Gupta Chandragupta whose predecessor was chandrasri or chandramas or chandrabija and successor SamudraGupta, who could easily be identified with Xandrames and sandrocyptus.In spite of lack of any correspondence between xandrames and sandracyptus with mahapadmananda and bindusara, the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya respectively, the latter was declared to be the cotemporary of alexander and relegated to 327 B.C., thus reducing the antiquity of Indian history by more than 12 centuries.
^chronology of ancient Hindu history by kota venkatachalam,vol-1, p.49. ASINB0007KA0QC
^The plot in Indian chronology by Kota Venkatachalam, p.59-57.ASINB0007JSXGC
September 2017
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Kankali Tila tablet of Sodasa. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alchon
Thanks for the feedback. I am aware that the Huna are often referred as in South Asian contexts as "Huns". However, this is controversial among scholars and will be confusing to many lay readers of Wikipedia, because Huns has a different quite possibly unrelated usage, in regard to the people who entered West Asia/Europe as early as the 3rd century CE, led by Attila.
Following your feedback, I have moved the page to Alchon, which avoids:
the issue of neologism that you raised;
redundancies like "Alchon Huns" and "Alchon Hunas" – i.e. since all of the Alchon were Hunas/Huns, and referred to themselves simply as "Alchon", there is no need for a qualifier (Huns/Hunas) and;
If it is the case that a majority uses a dubious name, it is also clearly a redundancy that has become semi-normalised (in much in the same way as tuna fish or "PIN number").
Which is why WP:COMMON does not necessarily require the most common name, especially if that name is demonstrably controversial or incorrect, e.g. it is: misspelled, ungrammatical, is a pleonasm (e.g. a redundancy), a neologism or anachronism, or a similar reason. Hence it's not necessarily relevant that "almost nobody in the literature uses ... Alchons ... without the suffix 'Huns'"
"As far as I know, at Wikipedia, we are not supposed to invent new terminology " – indeed, "Alchons" as plural noun is itself a neologism, since there is no evidence for an -s plural in the language of the people in question, i.e. they used Alkhon, Alxon, Alkhan, Alakhana, Walxon, Alchon etc as a genitive or plural noun (on coins etc). So even the -s in Alchons is redundant.
Coins are practically the only texts that the Alchon themselves left, so its highly significant as you yourself note that "Alchon ... is only used as an adjective as in "The Alchon coinage".
A separate search for Alkhons, Alxons, Alkhans, Alakhanas, Walxons or Alchons +huns OR +hunas -alkhon-huns -alxon-huns -alchon-huns -Alkhan-huns -Alakhana-huns -Walxon-huns -alchon-huns brought up up 166 hits.
Seems like you are trying so hard with your biased prejudised to deemphasize the connection of Heliodorus pillar with Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism is a living tradition and any naive Hindu will say unambiguously that Vasudeva is Krishna. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm Farang Rak Tham. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Greco-Buddhist art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Welcome back! But I have to say you are a terrible over-user of this format. Barabar Caves is now much better illustrated, but very untidily. Single or double row mini-galleries are greatly preferable to multiple images in nearly all cases. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Johnbod for the welcome! I do appreciate! I am not so sure what you have in mind for images, so please do not hesitate to try your prefered format. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm In Memoriam A.H.H.. पाटलिपुत्र, thanks for creating Kunala Stupa!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Nice work on the article! However, to prove WP:NOTABLE, you need more sources. However, your article is good. Well done!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
With this edit you added a source to an unsourced quote. When I checked the source, I noted that the Hultzsch translation does not match the quote. This quote may, or may not be a faithful reproduction of a reliable academic source. Adding a source that does not match the quote does not improve this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:QUOTES for more info. JimRenge (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge: Thank you. The reference is correct, but you are right the previous translation in the article was a bit off. I'm correcting according to the source. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source because the Ashoka inscription is the main argument of the "Buddha was born in Nepal" campaign. The message of the inscription is unambiguous: Ashoka and his advisors believed that Gautama Buddha was born in Lumbini. Enthusiastic supporters of this campaign have been involved in disruptive editing on the Gautama Buddha page for some years. The article is now indefinitely protected. I think it is a good idea to prevent the manipulation of historical inscriptions/sources by campaigners. JimRenge (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AryamanA: Glad it helps!! And congratulations for your titanic work on Wikitionary! Do you know how to make links to your Wikitionary pages from Wikipedia articles? I tried [[wikitionary:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]] for Tulumaya (Ptolemy), but it doesn't seem to work... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You spelled "Wiktionary" (not "Wikitionary") incorrectly, that's all :) It should be [[wiktionary:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]] or just [[wikt:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]]. AryamanA(talk, contribs)21:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AryamanA: By the way, I have another question for you. The name "Ashoka" is written in the Maski edict as attached. To me this should be pronounced Asoka, rather than Ashoka. Can you confirm? If so, would you happen to known where the "sh" pronounciation as in the English transliteration "Ashoka" comes from? It is also spelled Asoka in this 1st-3rd century CE inscription. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name was probably re-Sanskritized at some point; perhaps the first documents confirming his identity were in Sanskrit, and were discovered before his edicts. ś → s is a regular development from Sanskrit to Ashokan Prakrit. AryamanA(talk, contribs)14:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to inform you why I rolled back your edit on Phocas, since I failed to do so in the Rollback itself. Generally artistic renderings, be it statues, paintings, mosaics, drawings, etc, are preferred to raw coins, as the coins are often damaged or show less detail. Thanks. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, पाटलिपुत्र. You have new messages at Talk:Khalsi inscription. Message added 16:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi पाटलिपुत्र, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GABgab14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for starting the articles on the Lygdamids! One question, though: Pisindelis left his throne circa 452-449 BCE, but his son Lygdamis II died in 454 BCE, bringing the dynasty to an end? The dates don't add up. Constantine ✍ 09:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for adding so many valuable pictures/images to Wikipedia. Really great. I was wondering; do you also have images/drawings/etc. of the destruction of Persepolis at your disposal? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[2] "Xerxes tomb Ionian with petasos" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia"
[3] "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos soldier circa 480 BCE" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia soldier circa 480 BCE"
[4] "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos soldier circa 480 BCE cleaned up" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia soldier circa 480 BCE cleaned up"
LinuxDude (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I don't know how you tilted your table of contents but it's pretty cool. In any event please don't revert my edits to the Behistun article. Herodotus didn't know that same people were called one thing in Assyrian and another thing in Babylonian. Three separate Assyrian scholars all noted (at least 100 years ago) that the one people were called by two names. They were Sayce, Edwin Norris and Rawlinson. I went back to the source cuneiform and confirmed that Norris and Rawlinson were correct and included links to these references so people could see for themself. Accordingly when you revert you restore the Herodotus view and not the view of later Assyriologist. If you have someone who has shown Norris, Rawlinson and Sayce wrong - fine, revert. If not please let my edits stand as it reflects views more current than the ancient Greek view you restore.[reply]
Kash 95 019Hi, I've put the Kash picture you requested up, in full size so you can use it if you want. However, I'm new to Commons, have been uploading mainly mosques so far, intend to go on, and don't have a clue how to react to messages like yours. As a matter of fact, don't know if you'll find the Kash picture without my informing you it's at up. I can see it at has a link. If you could help me find the messages-part, please do. Dosseman (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frataraka and kings of Persis
From my understanding the Kings of Persis held the title of Frataraka, and there wasn't any specific 'Frataraka dynasty' that was different from that of the Kings of Persis. Shouldn't Kings of Persis be kept in the Template:History of Iran with Frataraka removed then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Hi HistoryofIran! From what I have seen, the Fratarakas were not Kings: they did not claim to be kings on their coins (whereas the Kings of Persis did), and were probably some local religious rulers or governors under the Seleucids. Conversely, the Kings of Persis were not Fratarakas, only their successors: they claimed the title of Kings, and were actually sub-Kings of the Parthian Kings for the most part. I really wouldn't mind though if you prefer to remove the Fratarakas from the Template:History of Iran, since they do not seem to have been full-fledged rulers. Up to you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Iranica has a bad habit of spelling every name of its articles in a New Persian form, which is often the least used version of the name. A good example is Vahbarz, who is in reality better known as Wahbarz (such as in the source I just linked). I might do some article name moves here and there if you don't have any objection to that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Been reading about the Kings of Persis and their use of the title of Frataraka, and there doesn't seem to be any 'Frataraka dynasty'. Furthermore, the early kings of Persis are also included with the rest of the later kings as belonging to the line of Kings of Persis in both Iranica and Shayegans work (btw already under Wahbarz the kingdom of Persis declared independence per Shayegan). I'm gonna try to expand Wahbarz to GA [6] and then I'll see what I can do at the Kings of Persis and Frataraka articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: The Fratarakas and Kings of Persis are treated separately by both Shayegan (who separates "early rulers of Persis" in "two groups" p.168-, with the Fratarakas forming the first group or four or five rulers) and Encyclopedia Iranica (which has two clear separate articles: Frataraka and Kings of Persis). Iranica puts them together in one list under the title "Dynast of Persis", not "Kings of Persis", in TABLE 1. Shayegan lists them under the title "Rulers of Persis", not "Kings" in his Table 3 p.179. As known from their coinage, the Fratrakas did not have the title of Kings, and the later Kings (who had the title mlk on their coins) conversely did not have the title of Fratrakas, with one or two tansitional rulers between. Appart from their titles, they all had various levels of independence, either from the Seleucids or the Parthians. The expression "Frataraka dynasty" also seems quite current [7][8][9][10][11]. Good luck with the GA for Wahbarz! (Wahbarz wasn't King though, Shayegan only lists him as a Frataraka "early ruler of Persis" [12], and he also clearly writes p.177 that "he refrained from adopting the royal title". This will have to be corrected) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dynasts/Rulers/Kings, same same. What I'm trying to say is that they're listed as ruling the same kingdom. There weren't two separate entities in Persis during this period as Wikipedia currently lists it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Not "same same" at all, there is a big difference. A ruler, "someone who rules" can be many things, including satraps for example. A dynast is "a member of a powerful family, especially a hereditary ruler", but not necessarily a king. Shayegan clearly says that Wahbraz "refrained from adopting the royal title" [13], so there is no way he can be referred to as "King", or even as a member of the "Kings of Persis". From what I've seen, reputable sources don't present him as a "King" or a "King of Persis", only a ruler or a dynast: simply, he was a Frataraka (sub-satrap) ruler of Persis. He ruled a region or a province, not a kingdom. Fratarakas and Kings of Persis clearly form two sets of rulers, following one another chronologically, per the above references. Treating them separatly is what Encyclopedia Iranica does with two separate articles (Frataraka, Kings of Persis) as well as Shayegan. Encyclopedia Iranica clearly defines the Kings of Persis as "the Persian dynasts who between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE ruled as Parthian representatives in Persis": this has nothing to do with the Fratarakas, who date to well before the Parthian expansion. Looking forward to a great encyclopedic article on Wahbarz. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Assyria into Ur. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Corinthian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cythera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for your edits on Narmer, especially the edit that fixed the format of the caption on the photo of the Narmer Palette. I tried and tried to get that result, but couldn't.Heagy1 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your valuable adds on Persian king and the defeated enemies. Your new sources make me wonder how the cylinder was misattributed to Cambyses II for the first time (a seemingly wrong information that unfortunately spreaded all across the web) rather than the plethora of other more suitable Achaemenid rulers suggested by academics. Anyway, thanks again. Khruner (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again on this seal: given that the more-or-less same scene is depicted on more than one seal, I thought that maybe it would be better to switch the article subject from the specific St. Petersburg seal to the scene itself (the title would remain the same). Your thought? Khruner (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The date on the picture caption is wrong, sources clearly mention wall construction and revetment date of 1025-955 BC, while another source mentions 700 BC for period I defensive wall construction which is shown in the picture hence 1025-700 BC caption. 175.145.218.221 (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your correction of the age of the Bhimbetka rock art at Indian painting, Indian art, and Cave paintings in India. Factually, it's fine; but there was a problem of incorrect placement of the content into the Lead of these articles, instead of into the body, where they belonged.
You've been around for some years, so no template, but you need to ensure that your article edits conform to the purpose and function of the Lead, which is to introduce and summarize the article. The lead should not contain unique information. Per MOS:LEADNO: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." And that, in turn, implies the proper sequencing of adding new content to articles, namely: "first change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body", per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
What you're not supposed to do, is add brand new information to the lead of an article, that isn't already covered in detail in the body. Unfortunately, you did that three times recently, in connection with your updates to the age of the Bhimbetka paintings, at Indian painting (diff), at Indian art (diff), and Cave paintings in India (diff). I have no quibble with your content correction but none of this should have been added to the lead; rather, you need to update the body first, and then briefly summarize it in the lead, afterwards. Also, since the body will already contain all the proper reference citations, there is no need to add references to the Lead, since it's merely summarizing the already sourced detail in the body; at least, it is, if the person who added the content to the body observed the WP:Verifiability policy, and added the required sources. (Also, adding five refs when one solid one will do, is WP:OVERCITE.)
I've fixed the first and last of these cases up for you, so you don't have to do anything for those two. However, I sure hope you're not doing the same thing on other articles, as you did on these three. If you are, then please stop. For those articles which may now be out of sync with guidelines on the lead, please consider editing them to move your unique content out of the lead and into the body, and then just briefly summarize it in the lead; no refs needed. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi would you be willing to upload the rest of the subject nations from Darius's Egyptian statue?[16] They can be used very well on Wiki. Not sure how you managed to locate the precise hieroglyphs and proper transliterations (e.g. [17]), but a great job nevertheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late response, been mad busy. If you are still willing to do it, I'd really appreciate having Cappadocia, Lydia, Armenia, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Persis, Media, Chorasmia, Kush, Arabia, and Thrace! - LouisAragon (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Welcome back! I've just uploaded the image in Commons Category:Statue of Darius I. Reading the hieroglyphs in these inscriptions is pretty easy as the characters used are just the Egyptian phonetic syllabary (see Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian)... you can even copy and paste the characters is you need to write a proper transliteration. Have fun! पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk)19:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copper cast coin from Kausambi
you claim for false dating is baseless, try to read the links provided in support of the images which has been extracted directly from the source itself, since you are making accusations of false dating im attaching the text from the source itself here;
Seven punch-marked coins occurring from 5’/*. III. 10 to III. 14, include
four silver coins (Type I A) and three copper coins (Type I B). The uninscribed cast
coins have four principal types, viz. (II A) square cast, (II B) round cast, (II C)
mythical animal type and (II D) tiny cast. Square cast coins (II A) with elephant
before a standard, generally Svastika-topped, on the obverse, and tree in railing,
hollow cross, arched hill and taurine, on the reverse, available from II. 5 to III.
16, are represented by twenty-nine well-preserved specimens. The four round cast
coins (II B) having an elephant with or without rider on the obverse and arched hill
on the reverse, occur from III. 10 to III. 14. The four coins of type (II C) whh
a mythical animal, partly horse and partly bull, erroneously described as lanky
bull, before a standard, on the obverse, and tree in railing, wheel, arched hill,
Svastika and Ujjain symbol on the reverse, show more than one type of different
denominations and occur from SP. III. 12 to 5'P. III. 16. Tiny coins (II D),
eighteen in number, have probably tree in railing on the obverse and bull, horse or
elephant on the reverse. They were discovered from SP. III. 12 to IV. 20. Out
of the ten coins of the Mitra kings (Type IIIA), four are from III. 15, five from
III. 16 and one from a post-structural pit. The four Magha coins (Type III Bj
belong to SP. IV. 20.
The square uninscribed cast coins, with their uniform distribution in all the
structural periods from II. 5 to III. 10, antedate the first appearance of punch-
marked coins whose earliest occurrence is in SP. III. 10. From their frequent
association with silver punch-marked coins, it has been generally assumed that
these uninscribed cast coins are of the same date.' But the evidence of these exca-
vations suggests that cast copper coins constituted the currency of the town as in
Vidisa^ and Ujjain^, much before the introduction of silver money. The
absence of silver coins in the earlier levels may be accidental and further work
in the Gangetic Valley alone can establish the prior antiquity of cast copper
coins over punch-marked silver ones. The evidence furnished by these excavations
is significant and the priority in origin of punch-marked coins can now no
longer be taken for granted. There is no doubt, however, that these copper coins
remained in circulation along with silver and copper punch-marked coins.
Copper coins of many types and in various submultiples like Vimsatika,
Ardha and Pada \^irhsatika, Karsapana, Alasa, Kakini, Ardha Kakini are known
to Kautily'a, Panini, the Tripitaka, the Jatakas and the Srauta Sutras. ^ The
combined literary evidence, thus, clearly attests the existence of copper coins
centuries before these works were compiled The beginning of coinage can be
placed on the basis of the literary data, corroborated by the e\'idence furnished
by these excavations, in the early centuries of the first millennium B. C.'
Hi 168.211.113.244. You are replacing proper images of coins from 150 BC-100 CE, and changing them with very poor quality and poorly sourced images claiming "9th century BC" in their caption [18]. That's clearly not an improvement. The text above only says "early centuries of the first millennium B. C." without being more precise. Your other source [19] actually shows that the IIA coins are from a period between 900 BC to 0 BC (the long bar in the graph), which is certainly quite vague and does not allow you to choose selectively the 900 BC date only. Furthermore the poor quality photograph you are using File:Kausambi coin 9th Century BC.png is seemingly copyrighted and has already been nominated for deletion. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk)06:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your source for 150 BC-100 CE is dubious and unreliable, which is based on a private coin auctioning website and not an academic document, your claim for copyright is also false, since the copyright is from 1960 which has already expired, you assertion on IIA coins between 900 BC to 0 BC (the long bar in the graph) which is certainly quite vague and does not allow you to choose selectively the 900 BC date only is explained by the text which places the squared copper cast coins in the early centuries of the first millennium BC and the table which also places the coin below in the 9th century BC. 168.211.113.244 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Don't change without knowing about tamil brahmi
May be central government have not official announced it yet,some politically behind it,but it will be done soon.then i will definitely changing it, kindly read out to those above articles Kkkraj (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 1,00,000 (100,000) odd inscriptions found by the Archaeological Survey of India, about 60,000 were in Tamil Nadu, of these 60,000 inscriptions, only about 5 per cent were in other languages such as Telugu, Kannada, Sanskrit and Marathi, the rest were in Tamil. Over 25,000 Kannada inscriptions were unearthed in Karnataka, though an in depth study of many of these is yet to be conducted according to Hampi Kannada University Sociology department Head and Researcher Devara Kondareddy. Kkkraj (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have some proper new sources regarding the Kidarites / Central and South Asia, perhaps they could be of help to you? I can send them to you via mail if you want. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read your mail properly as I was half-asleep. I've send you the files, not to the mail you asked me to but your Wiki account. Did you get them? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
″== A plea for cooperation - and I've sent you two more sources ==
Could you for the love of god pls be more cooperative, you're giving me anxiety attacks. I can't be arsed to look through what you've done to the Peroz I Kushanshah and possibly clean up after you again. Also do mind this is a GA article, so please be at least more thorough (the sources have to be alphabetic for starters, also every addition HAS to be sourced, *looks at the Anahita bit*). Also I've sent you two more sources from Rezakhani about the Alkhans and Kidarites, what a nice guy I am. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Well, the coin descriptions are I think well done with some of the most recent and authoritative sources. I've reduced the coin captions and developed the descriptions in the body per our discussion. I will look at your mail. Best पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk)09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I gotta admit this overhaul of yours seems decent enough. If you do it like that everytime then you won't hear any objections from me. Sorry if I appear arrogant or authorative sometimes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't have any objections, then I'm gonna redirect Ardashir II to Ardashir I, and Varahran II to Varahran I, since according to new research by Cribb and Rezakhani, they don't seem to have existed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samudragupta into Gupta art. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Hi Dianaa! I think it might be the other way around, as I copied this content from Gupta art to Samudraguptawith attribution[23], about 1 hour after I had created the content in Gupta art[24]. And I thought it was not even necessary to attribute one's own content, although I generally try to do it.... Or maybe the Bot just saw a similar quote from a reference in this contribution [25], which I don't thing counts as requiring user attribution since the external source is already attributed in the ref. Can you confirm and strike out your warning if it's the case? पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk)15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have double checked, and it looks like it's a false positive. Sorry for the mistake. Attributing copying of one's own prose is indeed a good idea, though legally it's not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
On 17 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gupta art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient Gupta art of India includes gold coins commemorating the AshvamedhaVedic horse sacrifice (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gupta art. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gupta art), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334085135){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_I_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos_soldier_circa_480_BCE.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334085020){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_I_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos_soldier_circa_480_BCE_cleaned_up.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334084995){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darius_I_statue_Parthia.jpg){kind=link}
