Jump to content

User talk:EdwardElric2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JMCC1 (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 14 January 2019 (Text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

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! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch Hello, could you take a look at the Arjuna article's recent edits. I think there's been a lot strange activity occurring there in the last few days as a few users have been deleting and replacing major parts of the article with no explanation given. For example, the user 47.29.220.62 whose edits you reverted in the Krishna article has also been deleting and replacing major parts of the Arjuna article also with no explanation. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia so I don't know exactly how to respond to this. Thanks. EdwardElric2016, (talk) 7:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of India to Cradle of civilization (your addition has since been removed). 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. 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. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Thank you very much for clarifying this to me. I will try to make a habit of these procedures in my future edits. EdwardElric2016, (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alam of the Mughal Empire

The consensus is that this is a fake flag. Please don't add it anywhere. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regentspark Oh really? I saw it on the Alam Wikipedia article so I assumed it was real. I'm really sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. I added this flag to a few other pages so I'll go back and remove them. EdwardElric2016, (talk) 1:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries. We've tried getting rid of it on commons but nothing ever goes away over there. --regentspark (comment) 01:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Great Peacemaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Huron
Pachacuti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Garcilaso de la Vega

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Zoroaster. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please discuss on the talkpage before further reverts. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Zoroaster shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring. Final warning.

Removing referenced citations in favour of your own POV is vandalism I have added 9 sources that are used in the article already. They only refer to Indus River [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] There is no mention of Gangetic plan, or India or anything else. --Xinjao (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjao, I think you misunderstand what the word vandalism means. Vandalism in Wikipedia is editing for the sake of malicious intent. Vandalism is NOT including or adding material that may happen to contradict your political beliefs. "Removing referenced citations in favour of your own POV" Isn't that what you're doing? You removed material sourced with valid citations without gaining a broad consensus. And the material you have an issue with isn't necessarily my point of view but is the current consensus achieved for the Cradle of Civilization article. If you want to change the consensus you would be wiser to spending your time more productively by persuading others, especially administrators, in the talk page on your point of view instead of edit warring and threatening me with a "Final Warning", both of which are against the community guidelines. --EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Achaemenid Empire while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, EdwardElric2016. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid presence in India

Thank you for asking some very interesting questions at Pataliputra's (पाटलिपुत्र) talk page (copied below). It is unfortunate that he chose not to answer them.

I have recently gotten an interest in this part of Indian history and was surprised by the lack of information I was able to find on this subject. ... I have a few questions that I have been meaning to ask you. Are you aware of any Indian sources that mentions the Achaemenid Empire or its rulers in any way? From what I know, Panini who was from around Taxila never mentions the Achaemenids. I want to try to match the Achaemenid records with the preserved oral Indian histories of that time so that I can be able to have a general idea to when certain events from that time took place, for example when the Buddha lived. When do you think is around the most likely time Buddha lived? I am aware that the Buddha knew of people who were from Taxila. I am also aware that Taxila didn’t expanded significantly until after the Achaemenid conquest. Since it probably took some decades for Taxila to develop and gain the reputation it got in India during the Buddha’s lifetime, I think it’s more likely that the Buddha lived most of his life in at least the 400s BC rather than any part before 518 BC. What is your opinion on my thought process? Do you agree or disagree? I can probably think of a few more questions but my post is already long enough as it is so I’ll end it here for now. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to hear back from you soon.

You might find this article helpful:

  • Vogelsang, W., "The Achaemenids and India, Two Worlds in Contact", in Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg; Amelie Kuhrt (eds.), Centre and Periphery: Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop, pp. 93–

The Persians are of course mentioned in various Indian sources including Panini as Parasikas. However, there is no mention of the Achaemenids (whose Sanskrit name might have been written as something like Sakhamanas). Neither is there any mention of an emperor (Samrat or Chakravarti). But then Indians were not particularly good at recording history.

Vogelsang mentions that the Achaemenid rule in India might have been so indirect that the Indians didn't notice them. It is possible that the empire retained local rulers, reporting to satraps in Bactria and Arachosia. So Indians might have come into contact only with those officials, if at all. When Alexander the Great invaded, there were no Persian satraps or officials in India fighting them; it was all local tribes. Moreover, these tribes essentially overthrew Alexandrian satraps as soon as he left the country. We can't say if the Achaemenids might have fared any better. There is an unfortunate tendency among historians to take the classical Greek and Roman writers at face value, even though it is clear that most of their writings were hearsay laced with fantasies. This is definitely not the historical method. And, on Wikipedia, there is heavy POV-pushing based on dubious and outdated historians.

What light might all this throw on the dating of Buddha? The only thing I can think of is the ruler Pukkusati of Taxila, who is said to have been a contemporary of Buddha. The narratives don't mention that he was subsidiary to an Achaemenid emperor. So, he must have been either before Darius I or sometime after him, when Taxila might have managed to become independent. This might mean that Buddha might have lived either around 600 BC or or around 400 BC, but not any time in between. But then it is not clear if Taxila was ever a part of the empire at all.

Hope this helps. Best regards, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Taxila was a city before the advent of the Achaemenids, as known from the archaeological excavations at Taxila, Hathial site. The Indian sources always regard Taxila as part of Gandhara whereas the classical sources say Gandhara was to the west of Indus (based at Pushkalavati). This might mean, for example, that Taxila was unknown to the classical writers, and hence probably not part of the Achaemenid empire. It might also mean that the term Pactyice used by Herodotus might be some form of Paschyat (Sanskrit for western). You can imaginen Indians calling Pushkalavati the western Gandhara, and Taxila the eastern Gandhara. The Mahabharata says that the two cities were founded by two sons of Bharata, the brother of Rama. So, the connection between the two is clear in the Indian mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kautilya3, Sorry for the late response. I definitely appreciate the time and effort you took with regards to your explanations regarding my questions. It is unfortunate that the other user decided not to answer any of my questions. I had noticed that he was greatly expanding articles related to my subject of interest so I assumed he was at least knowledgeable enough to answer my questions thoroughly. But thank you for deciding to answer them instead. Regards EdwardElric2016 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

Hi EdwardElric. Please, see Categories of Ancient Egypt and Talk:History_of_Egypt#Classical_antiquity?. Thank you. Regards JMCC1 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. JMCC1 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Rise of Civilizations: Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica", Archaeology, Wright, Henry T., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 46–48, 96–100, 1990
  3. ^ "AP World History". College Board. Archived from the original on April 22, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "World History Course Description" (PDF). College Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-10-03. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Civilization". The Columbia Encyclopedia. Archived from the original on 2012-07-08. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Edwin, Eric (2015-02-27). "city". Britannica.com. Retrieved 2016-01-04.
  7. ^ "Africanafrican.com" (PDF). Africanafrican.com. Retrieved 2016-01-04.
  8. ^ The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society, Hommon, Robert J., Oxford University Press, 2013
  9. ^ Kennett, Douglas J.; Winterhalder, Bruce (2006). Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture. University of California Press. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-0-520-24647-8. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdwardElric2016&oldid=878289525"