User talk:Dennis Dijkstra



Hello, Dennis Dijkstra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Hathigumpha inscription
Hello, Dennis Dijkstra. Barua's translation of the Hathigumpha inscription is well-understood, but it has had its own share of criticism and most importantly, the apex body has not published them. It does not amount to a reliable source as per Wikipedia's standards. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:OLDSOURCES. As per Wikipedia's policy on sources, the translation as published by the apex archaeological survey body of the country (The Archaeological Survey of India) is accepted in case of a contention. It is also usually the internationally accepted standard. See:
 * 1) The Archaeological Survey of India: https://archive.org/details/epigrahiaindicav014769mbp/page/n97/mode/2up?view=theater
 * 2) University of British Columbia: https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/full-text/24/1.0340476/0.txt
 * 3) University of London: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29097/1/10731192.pdf
 * 4) University of California Press: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/c125c9b3-4eb5-439f-8857-5df80c7424fe/bridging-two-worlds.pdf

In case there are contentious sources, alternative translations by scholars may be posted, but deleting content endorsed by reliable sources amounts to vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. I encourage healthy discussion on what might be most suitable for Wikipedia without resorting to edit warring. RJShashwat (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mahavira, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mahavira. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.. However, I have maintained the image as you suggested. The image needs no change, but the other disruptive edits that cause loss of information is unacceptable. See WP:VANDALISM. Thanks and with best regards, ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.