User talk:TeenX808: Difference between revisions

Line 433: Line 433:

[[User:Jcgaylor|Jcgaylor]] ([[User talk:Jcgaylor|talk]]) 01:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC decline–>

== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya|Ancient Kurundi Viharaya]] (October 30) ==

<div style=”border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;”> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by ChrysGalley was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This submission does not appear to be written in [[Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone|the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article]]. Entries should be written from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], and should refer to a range of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|independent, reliable, published sources]]. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery|peacock terms]] that promote the subject.|}}<!–

—

–> The comment the reviewer left was:

{{divbox|blue|3=The last section Modern Day Issue has a gratuitous swipe at Tamils, which does not need to be there. In addition to the nationalism section, the following sentences follow a non neutral pattern. Some of this is supported by sources, but those sources are also not neutral. It is a contentious area, so it may be better to err on a shorter, more conservatively worded item, based more on careful language.

As noted by the previous reviewer, using long quotes, as an alternative to an editor’s encyclopedic review and rewording, is also problematic.}} Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit ”after they have been resolved”.

* If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to [[Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya]] and click on the “Edit” tab at the top of the window.

* If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].

* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Ancient_Kurundi_Viharaya ”’Articles for creation help desk”’]</span>, on the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrysGalley&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ancient_Kurundi_Viharaya ”’reviewer’s talk page”’]</span> or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia’s real-time chat help from experienced editors]].

[[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 20:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC decline–>

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for the feed back I’m little bit confused since you have removed all the information I have provided even the ones I have taken from Jstor and ebooks, also there was one sided info present in the article, can you please review the article once more TeenX808 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JacobTheRox was:
The comment the reviewer left was:

You have not cited multiple independent reliable sources that show why this event is significant enough to have an article of its own, even if it did happen. Try find some sources that give significant coverage to the event itself, e.g. a book or article about it.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeenX808!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cactusisme was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw that you have declined my article for creation but you seem to have made a error Chola conquest of anuradhapura happened close to 900 years later way after the article which I was writing if there’s no more other errors I hope that you accept my article TeenX808 (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Cactusisme qcne (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a similar request by a different user was on my talk page. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 22:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

someone asked me if the draft should be deleted on my talk page. can you take a look? User talk:Cactusisme#Anuradhapura Invasion of the Chola Kingdom (114-136): A Legend, Not a Historical Event? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 22:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I respond regarding it here, if yes then,

The ref you used Gananth obeysekara ‘ The highly improbable ignorance of the king regarding the twelve thousand prisoners taken captive in his father’s reign till he is informed of it by an old widow, the cleaving of the ocean in two, and other miraculous events show that this account is hardly historical, though it may be based on some actual event whose nature I am in no position to infer’ In this ref itself he says some records of this event is mythical which I accept but he never said there’s no historical value also this person is a Anthropologist his view on this event significantly different from historians and I have gone to include ref from historians and there take on this event you can check the legacy sub heading

Also Lord buddhas bowl relic which was taken during a Chola invasion previously magically spawned in Srilanka or else if gajabahu did not bring it to Ceylon during the invasion how could it be in Ceylon, this right here is a historical evidence of this event taking place also do you think him just attending a event would be ruled out easily after this event took place.

Also in a another article weren’t you claiming Mahawansa isn’t a historical fact but a exaggeration of events why are you then using this as a source, is it because it fit your narrative or how you wanted this article to be plus there’s considerable amount of facts missing from it which then later included in the later chronicles and used as a source hope this explanation satisfies you.

I hope @Cactusisme will take a fair decision on the article TeenX808 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Ranithraj Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cactusisme, @TeenX808

“Also Lord buddhas bowl relic which was taken during a Chola invasion previously magically spawned in Srilanka or else if gajabahu did not bring it to Ceylon during the invasion how could it be in Ceylon, this right here is a historical evidence of this event taking place also do you think him just attending a event would be ruled out easily after this event took place.”

No Chola sources talked about Karikalan invasion of lanka and taken of bowl relic. So it is hardly a evidence. Learn how parakrama bahu III took back tooth relic. He took it back through diplomacy not any invasion. Similarly Gajabahu might have done that, that’s why silapathikaram too mentioned it. This is not a historical evidence.He just attended the event not any invasion if it were invasion then silapathilaram would mention it, so no invasion happened.Also I never said Mahavamsa is not a historical fact, I said it has exaggerations. Regarding the pandya civil war it suppress the failure. This is what I mentioned.

“he never said there’s no historical value also”
Stop misinterpret and mislead his statement he clearly said entire story of Gajabahu (which includes invasion) in later chronicles as myth.

I don’t think there is a historical core for this event. Let’s analyse the event, what the sources says about the event written during this or closely related period. From Chola side, it is not mentioned. From Ceylon side it is not mentioned as well.

Then why the event is mentioned after more than 1200 years. Let’s me break it down.

Gananath Obeyesekare mentioned in pg 366 ” The origin myth it explains the existence of South Indian settlers in kandyan provinces. …justifying their analomous status in sinhalese society. “

Even karavas who is of South Indian origin claimed Gajabahu as karavas. These are all the reasons why it was created.

With no reference from both sides of sources belonging to the same period it happened. It is not good if we portray this war as true or fact. Ranithraj (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘No Chola sources talked about Karikalan invasion of lanka and taken of bowl relic’ the chola invasion which I mentioned was done before karikalan period specifically which happened in 1st century Bc and the bowl relic was brought to Ceylon once again by Gajabahu.

This event is mentioned in Pujavaliya and Rajavaliya also what do you mean it’s not mentioned in Ceylon side those are Ceylon sources, also the Cilappatikaram mentions him, do you think a king would go to India just to participate in a non significant event also rajavaliya single Handedly mentioned about the pattini.

Just so you know Rajavaliya and Pujavaliya is written according to sources which was accessible during there period which is lost now, that’s why Cilappatikaram which was written almost 500 years later also talk about gajabahu also.

Also why are you bringing Karavas here it’s off topic also they have claimed so many historical figueres and different origin theories.

Just so you know there’s so many historical sources which are written years later which doesn’t make it false also there historical evidence in this case

I again reccomend you to read the legacy sub heading which explains how it’s connected

@Cactusisme @Ranithraj TeenX808 (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“the chola invasion which I mentioned was done before karikalan period specifically which happened in 1st century Bc and the bowl relic was brought to Ceylon once again by Gajabahu.”

Still No chola sources mentioned that invasion in which bowl relic was captured. Also no mention of Karikalan taking 12000 sinhalese in any chola sources.

“This event is mentioned in Pujavaliya and Rajavaliya also what do you mean it’s not mentioned in Ceylon side those are Ceylon sources”

I meant Ceylon sources during that time.

“the Cilappatikaram mentions him, do you think a king would go to India just to participate in a non significant event also rajavaliya single Handedly mentioned about the pattini.”

Yes they retained the king name through oral traditions. Just because the name is there that doesn’t mean he invaded.

“Just so you know Rajavaliya and Pujavaliya is written according to sources which was accessible during there period which is lost now, that’s why Cilappatikaram which was written almost 500 years later also talk about gajabahu also.

Also why are you bringing Karavas here it’s off topic also they have claimed so many historical figueres and different origin theories.”

I brought karavas because this myth justifying their analomous status in sinhalese society.

Read pattini cult by obeyesekara, he explains how the myth came.

“Just so you know there’s so many historical sources which are written years later which doesn’t make it false also there historical evidence in this case”

But this myth shows the other wise. If it really happened, Mahavamsa must have mentioned it. No inscriptions and no mention in Chola side proves it as a myth Ranithraj (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘ Still No chola sources mentioned that invasion in which bowl relic was captured. Also no mention of Karikaln taking 12000 sinhalese in any chola sources’ This invasion is mentioned by Srilankan historians extensivly where Indian historians focused on Gajabahus appearance in chera also Chola history is weak on this period even the invasion by Elara isn’t in Chola sources but is widely accepted by Indian historians and Srilankan historians just cause it’s not there in Chola inscription or etc it won’t falsify this invasion.

‘ I meant Ceylon sources during that time’ Lot of Ceylon sources are lost and Pujavaliya and Rajavaliya are complied on them.

‘ I brought karavas because this myth justifying their analomous status in sinhalese society’ Like I have said above they have claimed descent over so many historical figures because of their claim this doesn’t become false.

‘ But this myth shows the other wise. If it really happened, Mahavamsa must have mentioned it. No inscriptions and no mention in Chola side proves it as a myth’ Do you want me to say the same thing again and again there’s information in history which is from the later Chronicles, if we according to your statement from 5th century Ceylon wouldn’t have history.

@Cactusisme I hope you can resolve the issue TeenX808 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“it’s not there in Chola inscription or etc it won’t falsify this invasion.”

Again it doesn’t mean it happened, Mahavamsa skipped it because it never happened. If it really happened why Mahavamsa , deepavamsa and Chola sources all are silent on this. Because this event is a later addition as said by obeyesekare.

“Lot of Ceylon sources are lost and Pujavaliya and Rajavaliya are complied on them.”

Which lost sources and what is their period? . If lost sources contains those information why not in Mahavamsa and culawamsa?.

No lost sources , they are based on myths . Elara story is accepted because it is in mahavamsa. Mahavamsa didn’t mention this invasion.

It is very obvious this event is just a myth. Most of the Indian historians don’t consider this invasion as real. Try reading the south indian history, this invasionis not mentioned in any of the books.

@Cactusisme

It is obvious that this is a myth. We need to change the title as myth or legend.

Let’s resolve this Ranithraj (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘ Again it doesn’t mean it happened, Mahavamsa skipped it because it never happened. If it really happened why Mahavamsa , deepavamsa and Chola sources all are silent on this. Because this event is a later addition as said by obeyesekare’ Thanks for showing that you have no knowledge, there’s information which is missing in deepavansa but found in Mahawansa and this pattern continues with the rest of the Chronicles also Ganath obeysekara isn’t a historian and I have shown a ref we himself admits he has no say.

‘

Which lost sources and what is their period? . If lost sources contains those information why not in Mahavamsa and culawamsa?’ Why is there additional information in Mahawansa but not in Deepawansa so does it mean it’s made up same thing applies to Rajavaliya and Pujavaliya it comes down to the authors ability to get hands on resources

‘ It is very obvious this event is just a myth. Most of the Indian historians don’t consider this invasion as real. Try reading the south indian history, this invasion is not mentioned in any of the books’ Cause it isn’t mentioned South Indian history doesn’t make it false when it has historical backing, there’s South Indian invasions on Ceylon which isn’t mentioned in Ceylon books it dosent means it’s false, I could include in the article that this invasion is spoken on the Chronicles.

Also Mahawansa has spoken about the invasion by the Cholas which the Buddhas bowl relic was taken.

@Cactusisme Can you take decision on what to do TeenX808 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Thanks for showing that you have no knowledge, there’s information which is missing in deepavansa but found in Mahawansa and this pattern continues with the rest of the Chronicles also Ganath obeysekara isn’t a historian and I have shown a ref we himself admits he has no say.”

It shows you have no knowledge. “himself admits he has no say” why are you always misleading the sentence. He said this to the miraculous event and exaggerated content mentioned there. You portray him like he is accepting the invasion. Have a look at his statement. You can understand he ruled out this invasion as an myth.

This is his full statement

“Even a cursory glance at the Gajabähu story suggests that the account has no historical veracity. The highly improbable ignorance of the king regarding the twelve thousand pris-oners taken captive in his father’s reign till he is informed of it by an old widow, the cleav-ing of the ocean in two, and other miraculous events show that this account is hardly historical, though it may be based on some actual event whose nature I am in no position to infer. The account, however, is almost in point-by-point agreement with the Gajabahu myth sung in water cutting rituals. The inference is irresistible: the Gajabahu story is not a historical episode at all, but a mythic one associated with water cutting (and probably other customs) and incorporated into the two Sinhala chronicles. Thus the reason the earlier Mahavamsa account did not mention the episode is that it simply did not take place historically”

“Why is there additional information in Mahawansa but not in Deepawansa so does it mean it’s made up same thing applies to Rajavaliya and Pujavaliya it comes down to the authors ability to get hands on resources”

The differen between dipawamsa and Mahavamsa is century but Rajavaliya is more than 1200 years.

Obeyeselare also says this myth invasion is associated with watter cutting and other customs.

“when it has historical backing, there’s South Indian invasions on Ceylon which isn’t mentioned in Ceylon books it dosent means it’s false, I could include in the article that this invasion is spoken on the Chronicles”

How it has historical backing, could u provide me the inscriptions for this? None of the sources close to the invasion talks about this war . First account for this invasion wriiten after 1200 years.

Check HW Cordington in short history ofCeylon. He address this invasion as a legend.

Obeyesekare’s conclusion “To sum up what I have said so far. The Gajabahu episode in the Rajavaliya and Rajarat nakara is probably derived from the origin myth of the water cutting ceremony or from similar myths and has nothing to do with the historical Gajabahu of the Mahavamsa, who lived in the second century”

He clearly said this invasion is based on water cutting ceromony and other myths not just miraculous events mentioned but entire story in the later chronicles as myth and they are not historicle.
So we need to mark this invasion as legend or Myth. Also mahavamsa only said bowl relic was taken not any information on 12000 sinhalese prisoners to India and no Gajabahu invasion.
@Cactusisme hope you agree with this . Hi Astra Travasso added you here, feel free to give your comment on this mythic invasion.
Ranithraj (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obeyesekere approaches the event from an anthropological lens, highlighting its mythical elements, while historians may interpret it differently or suggest there could be a historical core behind the tradition. Including those perspectives, especially in sections like “Legacy,” adds useful context.

Since we’re still in draft space, I think the best approach is to present both views clearly — with reliable sources for both. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mind adding his statement but he claimed the entire event as mythical, even I agree some info are exaggerated even the reader can understand that but if we ignore this simply because some info are exaggerated it will be unfair plus most of the history documents are exaggerated to a certain level it doesn’t mean it’s false.

@Cactusisme TeenX808 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue expanding the article Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added most of the info will check out more books also a specific IP has been editing what ranitharaj has said can you check out because I keep on having to revert @Cactusisme TeenX808 (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the IP a warning for now. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much TeenX808 (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ganath obeysekara says the elements in the event which he thinks is mythical while accepting it’s based on a real event.

Mahawansa and depawansa has difference of over 300 years and you seem to not understand what I said please read what I sent.

‘

How it has historical backing, could u provide me the inscriptions for this? None of the sources close to the invasion talks about this war . First account for this invasion wriiten after 1200 years’ The ref is actually close to 1000 also what I said about these historical records having access to info which is lost now must have flew over your head .

This is what sir cordington was talking about ‘ in popular legend. According to the mediaeval account, in the time of his father, 12,000 men had been sent to work at Kaveri on the Coromandel coast ; in the late rajavaliya this has developed into an invasion by the Chola king. Gaja Bahu, while walking in the city one night, heard a widow weeping because her children had been carried off. The king, who was unaware of what had happened in his father’s time, assembled his army, but resolved to accomplish his purpose unaided in person. The rajavaliya relates the story thus’ he mentions the woman crying and him finding out as the legend which is also pointed out by ganath obeysekara and then goes on to tell what rajavaliya has given in detail.

sir senerath Paranavithana has given his take on it also ‘ king Gajabahu (112-134) retrieved the national honour by a counter invasion of the Cola country, and bringing back, not only the captives from Ceylon, but also an equal number of men of South Indian origin. Gajabhu is the only king of ancient Ceylon who has found a place in early Tamil literature, and it is not impossible that he undertook an expedition to South India. At any rate, his military prowess is attested by his title of Gajabahu (whose arm is of the strength of an elephant), by which he is better known than by his personal name of Gamani Abhaya’ this is the statement he has given.

‘Obeyesekare’s conclusion “To sum up what I have said so far. The Gajabahu episode in the Rajavaliya and Rajarat nakara is probably derived from the origin myth of the water cutting ceremony or from similar myths and has nothing to do with the historical Gajabahu of the Mahavamsa, who lived in the second century’ What he meant by this is the record of him beating the ocean to make a pathway for his soldiers as mythical which even i agree with.

Don’t repeat the same thing over and over again and make this talk page long if you want I can include that the certain elements of this even is mystical such as him beating the ocean to make a pathway for his soldiers and give info of the cholas being silent on this invasion but this invasion is certainly not mythical because some info are exaggerated, exaggeration happens in many parts of history it is nothing new also I have provided a statement from another profilic historian

@Cactusisme This argument is over you can review what changes need to be done I’m open to do modifications to the article if it means the reader is getting better understandment

TeenX808 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

” ganath obeysekara says the elements in the event which he thinks is mythical while accepting it’s based on a real event.”

You are misinterpreting him, he clearly said ” the reason the Mahavamsa didn’t mention is it simply didn’t take place”

Cant u understand the above statement by Him?

“Mahawansa and depawansa has difference of over 300 years and you seem to not understand what I said please read what I sent.”

Not 300 years, dipavamsa 4th century and Mahavamsa 5th century. I understood. It’s you who couldn’t understand. It is entirely possible if the gap is more than 1000 years, they can add the mythical elements and legends that never happened in it like the Gajabahu invasion. I would like to quote Obeyesekara once again he explained how myth gets added. The cult of the goddess Pattini by Obeyesekere, Gananath.. pg.368 “There is then remarkable evolution of Gajabahu story from the matter of fact in Mahavamsa to elaborated myth in Rajavaliya. Mythical elements are present in pujavaliya are absent in material from 5th century During this period, Gajabahu of history transformed into Gajabahu of myth. Pujavaliya commences myth making process by reference to cleaving the ocean and bring back captives”.

From his statement we can understand the mythmaking process started from Pujavaliya. Also The Gajabahu episode in the later chronicles derived from the origin myth of the water cutting ceremony or from similar myths. So we can conclude it is added later

“The ref is actually close to 1000 also what I said about these historical records having access to info which is lost now must have flew over your head .”

try to read the ref I provided. The cult of the goddess Pattini

by Obeyesekere, Gananath. Pg 363

“There are no reference to Gajaabhu visit to South India, reference are found in Rajaratnakaraya and Rajavaliya which is written in 16 and 17 century”

Hence the difference is more than 1200.

These historical records access to no lost records as this invasion is based on water cutting myth not any records .

Cordington clearly called this invasion and entire event as legend. Read again. Read this once again “A king of little account in the older chronicle, he has attained a certain fame in popular legend. According to the mediaeval account, in the time of his father, 12,000 men had been sent to work at Kaveri on the Coromandel coast ; in the late Rajavaliya this has developed into an invasion by the Chola king. Gaja Bahu, while walking in the city one night, heard a widow weeping because her children had been carried off. The king, who was unaware of what had happened in his father’s time, assembled his army, but resolved to accomplish his purpose unaided in person. The Rajavaliya relates the story thus”

He said Gajabahu got fame in legend and explained it with mediaeval account. He also said Chola invasion was developed later in Rajavaliya, but not mentioned in mediaeval account. It shows that legends are added in the later accounts. Don’t misinterpret others.

Paranavithana gave biased view based on 16 and 17 century chronicle.

“What he meant by this is the record of him beating the ocean to make a pathway for his soldiers as mythical which even i agree with.”

No you are misinterpreting him, he clearly said about entire story of Gajaabhu

pg 365..”the Gajabahu story is not a historical episode at all, but a mythic one associated with water cutting (and probably other customs) and incorporated into the two Sinhala chronicles. Thus the reason the ear-lier Mahavamsa account did not mention the episode is that it simply did not take place historically.

To sum up what I have said so far. The Gajabahu episode in the Rajavaliya and Rajarat nakara is probably derived from the origin myth of the water cutting ceremony or from similar myths and has nothing to do with the historical Gajabahu of the Mahavamsa, who lived in the second century ”
Story and episode refers the entire event in later chronicles not just miraculous or exaggerated events.
Also pg.368 “There is then remarkable evolution of Gajabahu story from the matter of fact in Mahavamsa to elaborated myth in Rajavaliya. Mythical elements are present in pujavaliya are absent in material from 5th century During this period, Gajabahu of history transformed into Gajabahu of myth. Pujavaliya commences myth making process by reference to cleaving the ocean and bring back captives”.
If you read above two you can understand he meant entire story of Gajabahu in later accounts as myth.

Read all these with open minded

“give info of the cholas being silent on this invasion”
Just read the Cholas written by Sastry, any other books related to the Cholas, Tamilnadu and south India, all of them shows Cholas didn’t mention any invasion during this period. No chola inscriptions and literature refers this invasion.
Ranithraj (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you was asking for more sources here are some

Sinhalayo by paranavithana pg-11 ‘ Gajabahu (112-134) retrieved the national honour by a counter invasion of the Cola country, and bringing back, not only the captives from Ceylon, but also an equal number of men of South Indian origin.

Gajabhu is the only king of ancient Ceylon who has found a place in early Tamil literature, and it is not impossible that he undertook an expedition to South India. At any rate, his military prowess is attested by his title of Gajabahu (whose arm is of the strength of an elephant), by which he is better known than by his personal name of Gamani Abhaya’

Beginings Of South Indian History by Aiyangar, S. Krishnaswami pg-150 ‘ Ceylon in the first century B.C.; and there were invasions and counter-invasions as well. On one occasion the Chols invaders carried away 12,000 inhabitants of Ceylon and set them to work at ‘the Kavery ‘ as the Chronicle bas it. This looks very much like an exploit of Karikala seeing that it was he who built the city of Puhar King Gajabahu of Ceylon was present at the invitation of the Red-Chern, to witness the celebration of a sacrifice and the consecration of the temple to the ‘ Chaste Lady ‘ (Pattini Dévi) at Vanji, on the west coast’ another ref ‘ When we come to Gajabahu the Mahãvansa itself has not much to say about his connection with India, but the other chronicles of Ceylon do state that be found it necessary to go to war, as on a previous occasion the Tamils invaded the island and carried away as many as twelve thousand inbabitants of Ceylon to work “in the city of the Kaveri.” This story seems to bave relation to the building of the magnificent city of Kaveripattanam or Pubar by the Chola king Karikãla.While there may be much thatis historical in this body of Ceylon tradition, we cannot say we are on sure historical ground’

Sir William Meyer Lectures University of Madras South India and Ceylon pg-137 ‘ There is a belief that as a measure of retaliation Chola invasion of Ceylon by Karikila, the Ceylon king Gajabahu (A.D. 174-96) took 12,000 captives of war to Ceylon, and settled them in the island. The places in which they were settled are satethive been Tumpane, Alutukuruwa, Udunuwara, Yatinuwar, Sarasiya pattuva etc.’ There is no reason to disbelieve the historicity of this account of the settlements given by the Rajavaliya, although the number of people settled was perhaps exaggerated’

The Tamils Eigheen Hundred Years Ago by V Kanakasabhai pg-8-9 ‘ The Mahawansa was composed in the fifth century A. D. and the Dipavanso still earlier ; and both these historical works mention Gajabahu I. It appears that during the reign of his father ” crooked nosed Tissa, a Chola king had invaded Ceylon, and carried away several thousands of captives ; and that in retaliation Gajabahu invaded the Chola dominions soon after his accession to the throne in a. d. 143 The tradition is that the captives were carried away to work on the banks of the river Kaviri, which were then under construction. This is quite in accordance with later Tamil poems and inscriptions” which speak of Karikal Chôla as the king who commenced the construction of the high banks along both sides of the bed of the Kaviri. The construction of the Kaviri banks which extended along its course to a distance of about 100 miles from its mouth, was an undertaking of such magnitude that it could not have been completed during the reign of Karikal. The Chôla King, who invaded Ceylon in order to procure captives to work at the banks, might have been therefore Karikal or his immediate successor. This tradition is further evidence of the fact that Chenkudduva Chera was contemporary with Gajabahu I. who lived in the early part of the second century A. D.’

I have provided sources which i haven’t even mentioned in the article so when the article gets thumbs up I will make sure to add all of them @Cactusisme @Ranithraj

As you can see there is a lot of validation from historians and professionals on history TeenX808 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranithraj Thanks, for your suggestions. I will not ask this draft to be deleted as it is still in draft space. Thank you for your input on this matter

@TeenX808 Thanks for responding to the issues raised. You are free to continue developing the article. I hope you make use of the feedback provided and improve the article that way. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 03:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme

Ok let’s not delete this draft but we need to Change the heading to Myth or Legend. We need to add the sentence sayiing this was legend or Myth.

It will be very misleading to the people who read it if we not mention this war as myth or legend.

As there is no mention of this event is South Indian sources , Mahavamsa, dipavamsa and inscriptions .

Also Obeyasekare clearly explained why it is a myth. I like to show his explaination again.

pg 365

“Even a cursory glance at the Gajabähu story suggests that the account has no historical veracity. The highly improbable ignorance of the king regarding the twelve thousand pris-oners taken captive in his father’s reign till he is informed of it by an old widow, the cleav-ing of the ocean in two, and other miraculous events show that this account is hardly historical, though it may be based on some actual event whose nature I am in no position to infer. The account, however, is almost in point-by-point agreement with the Gajabahu myth sung in water cutting rituals. The inference is irresistible: the Gajabahu story is not a historical episode at all, but a mythic one associated with water cutting (and probably other customs) and incorporated into the two Sinhala chronicles. Thus the reason the ear-lier Mahavamsa account did not mention the episode is that it simply did not take place historically

…

It is very much clear.

Also Cordington address this event as Legend.

I can also give ref to other historians who also consider this as legend, If you want. It is very obvious from the Obeyesekare statement that it is myth.

And another user who talk about historians who support his view. Those historians simply considers the later chronicles not the one which is close to the war.

Ok let’s keep the draft and change the name and add the sentence which says it is a myth. Ranithraj (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808 If you agree i can move the draft to the name suggested Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add all the new info also I don’t agree on @Ranithraj take on this being a myth also Ganath obeysekara take on pattini cult has been debunked.

Since the problem has been resolved I hope you can accept this draft

I will make sure to add some of the info are exaggerated @Cactusisme TeenX808 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will let another person look into accepting, You can submit the draft for review. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks for taking your time to resolve the issue @Cactusisme TeenX808 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme

@TeenX808

Problem has not been solved. Obeyasekare take on pattini cult not debunked. Don’t let another person to accept it until the title of the invasion is changed.

It will be unfair if we project this invasion as fact. It is clearly a legend. Let’s ask some other user to review the invasion and decide what should be done. Don’t accept and let anyone do until then. Ranithraj (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if the other user will accept, decline or comment so it entirely up to them. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change the title? Could you tell me who is the another user?, so that I can explain him Ranithraj (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a user that is reviewing WP:AFC, it can be anyone with that right. I don’t know who it is. What title do you want? If there is consensus I can move it. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wants it to be included as a myth or a legend and I don’t agree I have provided enough sources and put a lot of time for a simple article here @Cactusisme TeenX808 (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, okay Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Title I want is Legendary Anuradhapura Invasion of Chola Kingdom. There is no consensus as other person is biased. I have proven it this invasion as myth. If u have time , Go through Pattini cult by Obeyasekare. He clearly explained why it is a myth.

Also checked the history of Ceylon books written by De silva and Patrik peebles. None of them mentioned this war in their book as this never happened. Anyway the user who reviews this article will understand this is a myth @Cactusisme Ranithraj (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been solved your begging to put your own narrative and I have provided countless historians historians here stop wasting mine and @Cactusisme time here @Ranithraj TeenX808 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is not solved yet. You are the one who is begging to put your narrative here. I also provided the sources that proves it as a myth. You are simply misinterpreting those .

Read history of sri lanka by De Silva, and another book named History of Sri Lanka by Patrick peebles. Both of them denies the event as this invasion never happened. If that invasion happened both of them should have mentioned. They both mentioned ceylon participation and defeat in their book. You know Why they skipped this myth invasion because it never happened according to them.

You are one wasting mine time. You better stop and wait for the review. Ranithraj (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Sri Lanka, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 15:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tails Wx was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

~ Tails Wx 18:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate more on the reason why you declined my article because I have met most of the guidelines on article creation.Thanks @Tails Wx TeenX808 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

RangersRus (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you provide more information on what to do cause I have provided several sources from books to websites @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article you mentioned happened close to 800 years later and has nothing to do with the topic I wrote also the article contains sources dating back to late 2012s and most of them reviewed and published with up to date info, you might be checking the 1st editions I hope you can review the article once more. Thanks @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For these sources, can you find a direct link to page? If not, can you add the quotes that you are citing the source for, exactly as written in book from the page of each book?

De Silva, Sanath; Siriweera, W. I. (2017). Warfare in Srilanka: Military History of The Island from Earliest Times upto Independence (1st ed.). Sarasavi. p. 26

Wijetunge, Sirisaman (2016). The ancient heritage of Srilanka part -1 (1st ed.). Samudra. pp. 98–99

Paranavithana, Senerath (2012). Sinhalayo (12th ed.). Visidunu Prakashakayo. pp. 1q. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RangersRus I’ve posted a comment on both the article draft’s talk page and your talk page, presenting evidence that the invasion was a myth and never actually occurred, along with sources to support my argument. Can you take a look at it before making any conclusion here? Ranithraj (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient heritage of srilanka “ It is said that these invaders captured 12,000 Sinhalese and took them to South India. Pujawaliya mentioned that these captives were deployed in manual work in Kaveri river, India.

King Gajaba, the son of King Wanka nasika Tissa who succeeded his father was furious over this matter and he invaded the Chola kingdom in South India and brought back these Sinhala men. This could be considered as a very important factor in the history of Sri Lanka.

The name, ‘Gajabahu’ derives the meaning, ‘the arm of an elephant’.

King Gajaba is considered as a very strong king.

It is said that King Gajabahu walked across the Palk Strait by pushing the water aside using a huge iron mace. He was accompanied by his giant Neela. He brought the Sinhala prisoners back. He also brought the cult of Goddess Pattini. Since then, people used to follow the Goddess Pattini and even today, it can be seen. Poems and legends that are based on Goddess Pattini can be found. In these legends, King Gajaba Is the hero in the Tamil poetry, ‘Silappadikaram’ King Gajaba is mentioned. i inscriptions, it is mentioned that King Gajaba was the grandson of King vasabha. History sources recommend him as a very powerful monarch in StiLanka. Fourteen inscriptions that belonged to King Gajaba (114 – 136 AD) lame ben discovered. In one of these inscriptions – Godawaya inscription, ais mentioned that taxes that were collected from the Godawaya port, were donated for the maintenance of the temple that was located near the port. The king’s inscriptions have been discovered from Anuradhapura, Sithulpawwa, Hiriyala, Vavunia and Somawathi dagaba.

Lathese inscriptions, the king mentions that his father was King Naga and he was the grandson of King Wasabha perhaps with the intention of ascertaining is royalty and dynasty and also to show that he was the rightful heir to the throne. These inscriptions also proive that the reign of King Gajaba too was a prosperous period. In the Minwila inscription which was discovered near Somawathi dagaba, the king is introduced as ‘Uda Gi. It brings the sense trat the king claimed victories in battles.

In his inscription in Sithulpawwa, it is mentioned that in the courts there, when offenders were fined, two gold coins (Kahawanu) should be donated to the temple for the expenses of medicine”

Sinhalayo pg-11 “ Vasabha’s inscriptions are found in different parts of Ceylon, indicating that his authority was acknowledged throughout the Island. The Chronicle gives the impression that, towards the end of his long reign (65-109 A.C.), he was organizing his forces to meet a threat to his kingdom, possibly from abroad.

Later tradition asserts that in the reign of Vasabha’s son and successor, Vankanäsika Tissa, the great Cola king Karikala made a descent on Ceylon, and took away 12,000 captives to provide labour in the flood protection works that he had undertaken. The same tradition adds that the next king Gajabahu (112-134) retrieved the national honour by a counter invasion of the Cola country, and bringing back, not only the captives from Ceylon, but also an equal number of men of South Indian origin.

Gajabähu is the only king of ancient Ceylon who has found a place in early Tamil literature, and it is not impossible that he undertook an expedition to South India. At any rate, his military prowess is attested by his title of Gajabhu (whose arm is of the strength of an elephant), by which he is better known than by his personal name of Gamani Abhaya. Some of the rulers of the Lambakanna dynasty had names such as Mahasena and Buddhadasa, which were not borne by the scions of the earlier line; but the emergence of a new dynasty does not appear to have been marked by any violent change in the political, economic and administrative organization, or in religion and art, apart from natural developments”

Warfare in Sri Lanka pg-26-27 “ So called South Indian exploits of Gajabahu I (114-136) to avenge an invasion during the reign of previous ruler Vankanasika Tissa (111-114) are confused in detail and wrapped in hyperbole. Neither the Mahavamsa nor other ancient texts refer to Gajabahu’s invasion of South India. It is mentioned only in the Rajavaliya written in the eighteenth century, sixteen centuries after the presumed event.” Whether there is any historical truth in that legendary description is a matter of doubt”

I have provided the direct discriptions. @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus it’s been few days I hope that you can give me a inquiry on the situation plus this user has been recycling the same thing even though I keep on proving him wrong I hope you can check the debate which happened in my talk page and give me your thoughts, if there’s any question regarding this event you can ask me and I can give a explanation on his comment on your talk page proving him wrong.

Thanks for your time. TeenX808 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this soon. RangersRus (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source “Wijetunge, Sirisaman (2016). The ancient heritage of Srilanka part -1 (1st ed.). Samudra. pp. 98–99.” I am not able to find academic details on the author. Can you? And you used this source for Aftermath. In the page, you have used source “Codrington H. W. (1926).” for Invasion of the Chola, but this is unreliable WP:RAJ source. Source “Sesha Aiyar, K. G. (1937). Chera Kingsof the Sangam Period”, what is the academic credential of Sesha Aiyar? Book says that he was ex-judge? Anything to show if he was historian? RangersRus (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sesha Aiyar, K. G, he’s part of the Royal asiatic society and I will look for replacement of Wijetunge Sirisaman.

I will remove Cordington source because it’s outdated.

Also I’m carefully asking you to check his sources since he’s misinterpreting the sources which he uses for ex he claims most of these historians consider this invasion as a myth when his own sources says there not certain if it’s mythical and he claims certain historians have skipped the event but this is because the event isn’t mentioned to extreme lengths and is overshadowed by other events or due to the lack of attention.

I will add more sources tomorrow and I will remove the once which are needed to be removed, if you want I can add you to the previous debate which we had and Thanks for taking your time @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi by the way Sirisaman is a historian, he worked as an assistant director in archaeology department so I will only remove Cordington source. Thanks @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I wanna add another source but this source is questionable, The title is The story of Lanka by L.E Blaze this is a old source but this books rights was bought recently in 2023 is it eligible to entered. Thanks @RangersRus TeenX808 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TeenX808! Your additions to Draft:Osariya have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it’s important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (“) and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source’s wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file’s eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It’s very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. QEnigma (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QEnigma Hi the part of the draft which you removed belongs to this specific book, here’s the link in the page number 93 you can see the specific info https://www.google.lk/books/edition/Sri_Lanka_in_the_Modern_Age/Y-xQ8qk9mgYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=osariya&pg=PA93&printsec=frontcover TeenX808 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808: Please read the Wikipedia policy on copyrights and go through the links provided above. Also consider following the The Wikipedia Adventure as an introduction to policies and guidelines. QEnigma (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QEnigmaI checked the link and yeah the content is the same and I thought since the info is included in a book the info can be used since the copyright text is removed are you able to remove the copyright template. Thanks for reply TeenX808 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Mihintale Hospital Complex, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin thank you so much TeenX808 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:Uposathaghara has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89Hi the info which I used are itself taken from governmental books plus there’s no way of changing words by a big difference., Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeenX808. The key point to understand is that in almost all situations, you cannot copy text from other sources, including websites and books. You can use those other sources to provide information, but need to write your own original content in your own words. Your draft copied whole sentences from your source, which is a copyright violation and is not permitted. Hopefully that makes sense and just let me know if you have questions. MCE89 (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89:I’m gonna rewrite later will you be able to recheck, thanks TeenX808 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Haj was:

This draft’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Following removal of copyrighted content, draft needs further writing supported by reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Haj (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia’s copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: you seem to have made a mistake the info which I used literally directly comes from a public source which is also used by Kurundi website , so the sentences are bound to be similar, I hope you can restore the edits back.

you can check these original sources in the -The Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland Volume 6 1959. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Public source” is not the same thing as “public domain“. Sorry but I cannot restore it. It was practically identical to the source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: can you please restore it and I can paraphrase as much you want until you are satisfied and this is my final warning too regarding copy editing and if I make another mistake and it’s over for me. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808: Copyright violations are never restored. You must paraphrase it in your own words before entering it onto Wikipedia.

A final warning is meant to stop you from doing disruptive behaviour. Why aren’t you stopping? qcne (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne: I paraphrased it a little since it literally came from journal of Ceylon branch a govermental resource and I tried publishing it in a single day and now I’m stuck, even if i paraphrase it now and if the copy editor deemed it too close, I can still get blocked .TeenX808 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So make sure you paraphrase it very loosely? qcne (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne: I will paraphrase it today or tomorrow will you please be able to double check it for me .Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osariya, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Aeon Sentinel (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. This is a standard message to inform you that the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have already been alerted about Sri Lanka. Please read the Indian military history ruling which states that editors who are not extended-confirmed may not edit in the area of Indian military history. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:I will make sure to stop until I get extended user confirmation.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: also the only reason I’m editing is because of my history knowledge and it’s hard for me to look for another topic TeenX808 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: you have made a mistake, both the article including mine article have used direct quotes that’s why it looks like I have committed copyright, I discussed about this with another copy editor admin which asked me to shorten my quotes and which I did . TeenX808 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Theroadislong – I spoke to some AfC reviewers in the AfC discord and the quotes in this draft are out of copyright plus correctly quoted – as such I am undoing your CSD and decline. Hope that’s okay. qcne (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes…though it is rather unusual to have such a LARGE percentage of direct quotes in an article? Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probable agree – @TeenX808 I’d still paraphrase if you can or slim down the quotes. qcne (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:OVERQUOTING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong@Qcne:I will slim it down a bit more and thanks for the help, also can you remove the copy right violation. TeenX808 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/kurundashoka-ancient-monastery-in-sri-lanka/25156. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia’s copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Copyright violation done on Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) draft by User Teenx808. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jcgaylor was: The comment the reviewer left was:

Remedy the “failed verification” tags.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Jcgaylor (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley was: The comment the reviewer left was:

The last section Modern Day Issue has a gratuitous swipe at Tamils, which does not need to be there. In addition to the nationalism section, the following sentences follow a non neutral pattern. Some of this is supported by sources, but those sources are also not neutral. It is a contentious area, so it may be better to err on a shorter, more conservatively worded item, based more on careful language.
As noted by the previous reviewer, using long quotes, as an alternative to an editor’s encyclopedic review and rewording, is also problematic.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

ChrysGalley (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply