Talk:Kadam (clan)

India: Karnataka / Maharashtra Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Mid-importance).

More information:
/
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	This article was last assessed in November 2015.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

Identity of Rapson source referred to in article

I have tried to find the source for the geographical notations for the Junagadh inscriptions, despite only the author's last name being given. An author named E.J. Rapson was heavily cited by other authors writing about the ancient history of India. Possible publications by E.J. Rapson which might contain the cited geographical attributions include Ancient India from the Earliest Times to the First Century A.D. (for which there is a partial preview in Google Books but not enough to substantiate what's in the article) and Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1: Ancient India (which seems not to have any online preview available). Rapson also published about ancient south Asian coins, but I considered it unlikely that discussion of the inscription would be found there.

If anyone with access to these books can check them against what the article claims, it would be greatly appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2012/02/07/brave-queen http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying was discovered from additional sources in additional sections, including from a book, so the article has been reverted largely back to the last presumed copyright clean version. The copyvios were introduced in two waves: the first by IP 117.195.5.137 and the second in a series of edits in June and July 2015, which also introduced many copyright violations to Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]