User talk:Renamed user ExPsittacine

Videha

Thanks for reminding me to add a reliable source. I have restored similar content, which you reverted but this time with a reliable source. Please see here. Regards Ind akash (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ind akash: Thank you. If possible, please try to structure the reference so that it's more readable and future-proof. A tutorial is available here.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. --Ind akash (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hem Chandra Vikramaditya

In July 2016 you wrote on talk page Hemu, that you intend to change the version and improve a bit. What happened Sir? Page is completely biased as of now. Modern authors and Haryana Govt are ignored who name him as Hem Chandra Vikramaditya. Please visit the page and remove anomalies. Talk page has dozens of citations which address him as Hem Chandra Vikramaditya, his complete name. @Cpt.a.haddock: 182.68.112.225 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Replied on Hemu's talk page.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are many citations from various books and authors on talk page of Hemu, that you have removed. it is found from the page that entire page is prepared by you alone giving citations of Mughal authors or those who refered Mughals. Most of Hindu authors have been ignored by you. It is better you go through the long discussions on talk page. Several authors have mentioned Hem Chandra as the Prime minister cum Chief of Army during Adil Shah Suri's reign during 1553-56 but you prefer to write him as minister and general of Adil Shah. Even Abul Fazl has written Hem Chandra as de facto king during Adil Shah rule, but you hide this fact too. Entire page is written by you alone ignoring facts and other authors. Now you want discussions from beginning again. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 182.68.255.196 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

You have reverted multiple edits of mine saying "this is not an improvement". What is that supposed to mean? Are my edits damaging, vandal or harmful? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: They do not improve the article. The "wikidata fetch all" is not a mainstream template option and in more ways than one, its use simply makes the job of controlling "vandalism" even more difficult as the article can be edited outside Wikipedia (even by IPs). We'll then have to keep track of Wikidata vandalism as well. There'll then also be a new barrier of entry in that the editor will have to go to an entirely different site to fix errors (of which there are plenty) or to add sources. And afaik, syncs are not immediate and references are not catalogued correctly. Whatever the case, it's far too premature to roll this out and if I'm not wrong, there is no consensus on its widespread use across WP either. Please take this up on the talk page of a major article and obtain consensus before adding this everywhere. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your false positive report

Every URL reported as alive in the false positive reporter is dead. Please be careful before reporting false positive URLs.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: My bad. I thought the form accepted "false negatives" too. (I misread the text.) These URLs were dead ones reported as alive (deadurl=no). Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

False negatives normally correct themselves. It's a side effect of the bot making sure the site is dead before declaring it dead by making 3 consecutive checks first. If you want to address dead sites being really dead, you can alter their states using the tool that modifies URL data.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pallava dynasty revert

Hi Captain, I would like to know where you've read that the Telugu language is an official language in the article? In my view, the language section clearly states that Sanskrit resp. Prakrit are the official languages. Kinda regards, Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 12:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luigi Boy: Hello, this is not about official languages, but common languages and is also the site of random edit-wars between Tamil and Telugu editors. Please see the section above Languages on Birudas which notes inscriptional evidence of the use of Telugu. There's also a bit elsewhere on the possible Telugu origin of the Pallavas (i.e., Trilochana Pallava in Telugu tradition).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Well, I've precised the infobox. However, I still don't know if the Kannada should be included, cause the a part of Karnataka was also reigned. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 15:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luigi Boy: Hi, IMO, those labels are OR and quite unnecessary. If you're really keen on this, please find reliable sources for the languages section and improve that instead and incorporate that into the lead of the article. That will, IMHO, be far more useful. As for Kannada, I'm sure you've come across people who claim that the Pallavas were Kannadigas too :) Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Golghar

I noticed you reverted the diameter edit for Golghar. The measurement was based on aerial view using Google Maps. If you go to maps.google.com and search for Golghar Patna then you can measure the distance on map using Google Map's 'Measure Distance' Tool. Do you think this can be considered as a reliable source? Please let me know. I did find another source with diameter measurement as 125m but since it is a blog post, I am not sure if that is absolutely correct. So I used the methodology explained via Google Maps. Let me know your thoughts. Ananyapratinav (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ananyapratinav: That's nifty. But your own measurements are unfortunately not a reliable source. I've just had a quick look around and found this paper which might possibly contain such information; at any rate, it looks like it will be very useful in expanding the article which is in a rather rudimentary state right now. Another less specific source which looks promising is this book by George Michell. It is however only accessible via snippet view. Please consider using these or similarly reliable sources to improve the article. I'll keep an eye out for more. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Thanks a lot!

Proposed deletion of Raghu Karnad

The article Raghu Karnad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable author

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bharatas

It is sort of a racism to call Vedic people and people mentioned there tribes. The use of word tribe comes from a time when the racism was rampant. Many books were written to show many people in derogatory terms. We should use terms such as communities since Vedas themselves do NOT refer to Bharats as a tribe. Jana and Janapada mean community etc. Claims of popular English usage do not apply here as it misrepresents and is in a derogatory sense. ~rAGU (talk)

@Raguks: That's the term used in reliable sources and so, we are bound by that. I don't think tribe is a derogatory term; it comes from the Latin tribus, a term used to describing "the three original tribes of Rome". Also, if jana is the term used in the vedas, then that can also mean tribe.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to clear that Vedic entities were Clans not Tribes. Clan: "A clan is a group of people united by actual or perceived kinship and descent." Tribe: "a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader."

Tribe is more suitable for the Vedic Janapadas rather than Janas themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.40.243 (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

DRN on Talk:Malayalam

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Chera dynasty

Just a small note that you're pretty close to violating WP:3RR at Chera dynasty. I counted 2 reverts with a look at the history but I might have missed one in the bush... Better be careful. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Sanctions are applicable in India related topics which you frequent. This is just an alert. Nothing else.

Yashovardhan (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z33

June 2017

This is to warn you to stop your edit warring at Chera dynasty. I have temporarily full-protected the page because both you and Hyper9 were in danger of a block for edit warring. You are an experienced user here, you know better than this. I see talk page discussion and that is good; please work it out, call in expert or third-party assistance if you can't agree, but refrain from edit warring while the discussion is going on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The edit-warring at Chera dynasty continues. I asked about the issue on the NOR noticeboard. After receiving no response, I opened a DRN for this 4 days ago which is awaiting a moderator who will take the case up. FWIW, other admins have also edited the page and one has been reverted by the same editor. He is aware of all the DRNs and other steps that have been taken and continues to include his synthesis of the Early Cheras being Malayalam speakers to the page. He refuses to acknowledge that sources need to explicitly support the statement being made.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's good that you have two admins chiming in at that page, and hopefully they will be able to help you get this figured out and do whatever is necessary to resolve the disagreement and/or stop the edit warring. I suggest you appeal to them if the problem continues, since they appear to have more familiarity with the issues than I do. The DR moderator seemed to indicate that this isn't the kind of thing they deal with. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

kampur kingdom

on what ground are you constantly removing the Assamese spelling of kampur and pragjyotishpur.? Nirongkun bora (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nirongkun bora: As noted in my edit message, read WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

then i would like to inform u that.similar things are happening with the article regarding bhagadatta as we know bhagadatta was an ancient Assamese king and ancestors of many modern Assamese community but someone is repeatedly editing bhagadatta and narakasuras article with Bengali script so i had to remove Bengali scripts and edit with Assamese one.this is not at all acceptable.i would like u to take similar action on that case also too.i will not be watching if someone tries to manipulate our history. Nirongkun bora (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

take a look at cooch behar district article clearly you can see Bengali scripts been written all over.ask them to remove Bengali scripts please. Nirongkun bora (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nirongkun bora: Hi, as you might have noted, I have already done so for Narakasura. I have now reverted the latest edit for Bhagadatta as well. If you see someone adding unsourced information to the article or Indic scripts to the lead, you can revert them yourself citing WP:RS and/or WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Good luck.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

please take a look at cooch behar district article.. Nirongkun bora (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nirongkun bora: As noted in my previous reply, you can do this yourself. Just state in the edit summary that you are removing the script as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Or if there is no source provided, state that the information is unsourced and ask for a reliable supporting source.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you very much! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: FYI, I've used one of the images in the Taxila infobox. If you ever find a scholarly source to support the image's caption, please let me know. I'd prefer to avoid citing cngcoins.com as a reference. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Age India and Iron Age India

Hello, Bronze Age India and Iron Age India titles were recently changed without any agreement. Can you please change it back to the original title until consensus is reached? (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

I have reverted the moves and asked for a move request which is the norm if the move has been contested.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

He has reverted it back without building consensus. (70.214.97.250 (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Moved back.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Iron Age India

Hello Cpt.a.haddock. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Iron Age India, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I am declining the move and fixing the double- redirect.Please gain consensus in WP:RM. Thank you. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The current name is more suitable than the long-standing name.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: So you contest the CSD because you think that I should gain consensus via an RM. Then you realise that this was the long-standing name of the article after all and decide that the new (mistakenly created) title is better without gaining consensus via an RM? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I declined the page move because common sense tells me that the new title is better.(From a grammatical sense).(Nadir's move was controversial and was acc. challenged. RP's move does not fall under the purview of controversial moves.)If you feel that the original title was better, join the discussion.(There are a few alternatives too!)And my second edit was not an after-thought!(Given the extreme low frequency of activity at the article, there's problem in playing the long-standing tag.)Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Common sense would be to go back to the start and let all parties discuss. BRD and all that. There's also nothing ungrammatical about "Iron Age India".--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

History of metallurgy in South Asia

Hello, this is another article (History of metallurgy in South Asia), which was changed to South Asia. Even though all the linked source, research and references mention Indian subcontinent and the editor did not build any consensus. Can you move this back to the original title: History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent? (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:3880:8090:496A:1F69 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

The title has always been "History of metallurgy in South Asia." See first version. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Shouldn't we use what is mentioned in the linked sources? South Asia was barely mentioned in the article as a whole. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:3880:8090:496A:1F69 (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

We should have some standards for what term to use when. If you want the change the title, you have to follow the same procedure, I suppose, namely a move-request. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: How do I do that? Can you do it on my behalf? (104.148.132.146 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

See WP:MOVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Actually, the page was moved on 13 August 2015‎.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right; I missd that one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comment related to Maharashtri Prakrit article

I would certainly not categorize the below PDF link as 'dubious' since it is a page owned by the State Government of Maharashtra. https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/pdf/english/main.pdf

Also, providing hereby the landing page link and the cover page link for the 'Application for Classical Language': https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Home/Index.aspx# https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/pdf/english/cover.pdf

By the way, below is a snippet which mentions Maharashtri language belonging to 2000 BCE era (page 78):

"Ketkar (1931, p.10) adds, “The Mahārāṣṭrī language had flourished during the times of Vararuci. An independent language of Maharashtra must have been developing since 200-300 years prior to this time. In other words, the time of the early development of Mahārāṣṭrī would date back to the second millennium before Christ."

Amit20081980 (talk) 15:40, 02 July 2017 (UTC)

Copied to article's talk page and replied.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding List of Indian battles

Hey! My edit to the Mughal Empire was not intended to be 'vandalism'. I actually meant Maratha India and not Mughal India because Marathas controlled most of the region by 1759 - as such, I deemed the sentence to be appropriate. Perhaps I should have added context?

About List of Indian battles: Thanks for your suggestions. I certianly look to diversify the sources on the page and will not be adding links to every war-related page, as you said. I was hoping you could specifically point out what 'original research' you are referring to in this article so that I could fix that. Many thanks! --Coconut1002 (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coconut1002: Hi :) The context here is already set in that the article is about the Mughals and the paragraph deals with the progressive disintegration of the Mughal empire. "Maratha India" is also not a set phrase.

Re:OR, I have listed some of them on the list article's talk page. Let's discuss them there. FWIW, I think the list is overly broad in scope. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hello, you are welcome to participate in the move discussion at Talk:Vallabha Acharya. South Indian Geek (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitra dynasty

Look at the references provided on the Mitra dynasty article. All the references are provided. (2600:1001:B012:95BC:C11F:F9C9:72F8:2BEB (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Replied on the Shunga dynasty talk page.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, you're right. For the coins, I assumed the CNG attribution is already done in Commons, and doesn't need to be redone in the article pages? Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Frankly, I'm not sure re:captions needing citations. But you're probably right. However, I find that Commons is not terribly reliable or particular about citations. As it stands, articles will use an image of a coin stating that it's of Seleucus Nicator simply because Joe Bloggs who uploaded it in 2005 says it is. It's immaterial to Commons whether the caption has a citation or not as long as the image itself is licensed correctly. Take all the amazing photos uploaded by PHGCOM on Commons. None of the ones I've seen comes with a sourced caption and we just take his word for it. It's then up to the editors of, for example, the Chandragupta II article, to locate a source for his images which are then not necessarily propagated back to Commons. This is besides the fact that if anybody vandalises the descriptions in Commons, nobody here will know anything about it as that image will very likely only be on one person's watchlist—the uploader's. And what's more, if I edit the description of a coin of Chandragupta II on Commons and attribute it to Chandragupta Maurya, no one will be the wiser and some other editor will use it in the Maurya article a couple of years later.

Anyhow, I guess what I'm saying is that it's prudent (and doesn't hurt) to provide citations for coin captions on Wikipedia even if citations are provided on Commons and definitely if they aren't.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Haldighati

This article was still on my watchlist but I'm now removing it form the watchlist because I have over 600 watched pages. Feel free to contact me if/when needed. I like your nick BTW, I'm also a Tintin fan. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate - 16:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: :) Thank you for the tech assist and the revert the other day too. Until next time.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir, first would like to thank you for your support & guidance and would certainly follow the links you've shared before contributing to any article/page. Also I really appreciate your advice on getting some good reference books before attempting any contribution as I am definitely hoping to work on that piece on Maharana Pratap. Hoping you'd forgive me for keep coming to you over and over for any guidance and support in future. I wish you have a good day, Sir. till then...

Akash delhi (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Akash delhi: You're welcome. In case I haven't mentioned it to you before, you can also contact the teahouse for general questions. Take care.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. (BTW, the "Sir" is unnecessary around here. And good job on figuring out how to sign off on your messages :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Farrukhsiyar

Hi. I am concerned at the way you quick failed the Farrukhsiyar article. Yes there are some problems which can be easily be resolved through the review. According to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, articles are quick failed when it is far away from the GA criteria. But from the issues raised by you, it doesnt suggest so. Since this was your first review, I would like you to go through reviews (ex: Talk:Michael Chopra/GA1, Talk:Zesh Rehman/GA1). Anyway I have left a note at Talk:Farrukhsiyar/GA1. Thanks. RRD (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Replied over there.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Vikramaditya copyedit

Miniapolis Thank you for a stellar ce. The article reads much better now!—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Military History

Hello Renamed user ExPsittacine! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Chittorgarh

I added a reliable source this time. For further info of Patta, check wikipedia article Akbar and the citations given in it. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Hagoromo's Susanoo

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Thank you. However, there are issues with this. Firstly, you should be adding this content to the body of the article first; the infobox is simply summarising it. Secondly, you should be citing the source in full with author name, book name, page number, etc.; see the other sources on the page for an example of how to do this. Lastly, the article on Akbar is irrelevant to this article. If there are citations in Akbar, check them and and then employ them in this article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandrokottos = 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 was the first to oppose it in the letter to prof.MaxMullar and since then a number of scholars like T.S.Narayana Sastry, N. Jagannatharao, M.Krishnamachariar, Kota Venkatachalam, Pandit Bhagavadatta, D.s Trivedi and other are opposing it in their books and articles.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.

can it be added? or other quotes needed?