:{{ping|User:Johnbod}} Woahh, many thanks, thank you so much Johnbod! I was just trying to fill a gap, but I greatly appreciate, especially coming from such an art afficionado! Much remains to be done on this subject, it's just a start really, so do jump in if so inclined! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<font color="green">पाटलिपुत्र</font>]][[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<font color="blue"> Pat</font>]]</span> [[User talk:पाटलिपुत्र|'''(talk)''']] 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:Johnbod}} Woahh, many thanks, thank you so much Johnbod! I was just trying to fill a gap, but I greatly appreciate, especially coming from such an art afficionado! Much remains to be done on this subject, it's just a start really, so do jump in if so inclined! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<font color="green">पाटलिपुत्र</font>]][[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<font color="blue"> Pat</font>]]</span> [[User talk:पाटलिपुत्र|'''(talk)''']] 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks, I may at some point, but not for a while. Btw, you should set up archives here - let me know if you need help. Cheers, [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:16, 18 February 2021
Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pratyush (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Bihar invitation
A page you started (David Brainard Spooner) has been reviewed!
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indo-Greek Kingdom into Greek conquests in India. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see by your addition to Antiochus I Soter that you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vasudeva Krishna coin
Hi Patliputra. I removed the image you added to Krishna because it cannot be verified as being Krishna. Please provide a direct link to the image on cng coins so that it is clear that the image is that of Krishna. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, check out this video on how to easily cite sources in a structured manner. Use of the sfn template will also help in avoiding duplicates and streamlining the reference section. Adding quotations becomes easier as well. Just an FYI.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously repeating myself here. But please consider switching to structured citations. Just looking at the myriad "Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, John Marshall", "A Guide to Sanchi, Marshall, John, 1918", "John Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi, 1918", etc. in Sanchi is sending my brain into a tizzy. Then there are the typo'd references such as "Marhall, "A Guide to Sanchi"" and "Epigraphia Indice" … Such occurrences can be drastically reduced through the use of {{sfn}} and similar systems. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll try to do some studying! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: OK, the {{sfn}} format is a bit too tricky for me, but I'll go with the Cite template on top of the edit window. It is neat indeed. Thanks for the reminder! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, it looks like you're filling in the fields by hand and creating extra work for yourself :) All you should need to do in the Cite toolbar dialog is to paste the URL of the book in the URL box and then click on the magnifying glass next to it. This should auto-fill all the available fields. You can do the same thing with the ISBN field.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for all your various improvements to so many articles. However, why not simply provide attribution or a note in the edit summary (as explained by Diannaa above) when you copy text from one article to another? This is just one of many recent additions where you reuse content (from Yaudheyas in this case) without proper attribution. Please also cite sources for the many images of coins that you're adding to article; even cngcoins.com, if applicable, is fine. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Hormizd II Kushanshah) has been reviewed!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as needing additional references. Not easy for a subject from this period though.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Thank you for creating and expanding a significant number of pages on the rulers of Bactria and Gandhara. You're input, including your excellent coin-derived reliefs, has covered a big knowledge gap in wikipedia for a fascinating time in history, from the Hellenistic states, to the Kushanshahs, to the last of the Hunic emperors! alx_bio 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta) has been reviewed!
Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. पाटलिपुत्र, thanks for creating Vishnu nicolo seal!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for contributing this article. Please consider more sources and references for verification.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
For your excellent work on Indian History related articles. Razer(talk) 10:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
is sandrocottus chandragupta of maurya dynasty or chandragupta of gupta dynasty?
it seems that you have good knowledge of Magadha empire and Gupta empire.please give some guidance regarding the following. which I want to add in 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[1] was the first to oppose it in the letter to prof.MaxMullar and since then a number of scholars like T.S.Narayana Sastry[2], N. Jagannatharao[3], M.Krishnamachariar[4], Kota Venkatachalam[5], Pandit Bhagavadatta, D.s Trivedi[6] and other are opposing it in their books and articles.[7]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.
^chronology of ancient Hindu history by kota venkatachalam,vol-1, p.49. ASINB0007KA0QC
^The plot in Indian chronology by Kota Venkatachalam, p.59-57.ASINB0007JSXGC
September 2017
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Kankali Tila tablet of Sodasa. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alchon
Thanks for the feedback. I am aware that the Huna are often referred as in South Asian contexts as "Huns". However, this is controversial among scholars and will be confusing to many lay readers of Wikipedia, because Huns has a different quite possibly unrelated usage, in regard to the people who entered West Asia/Europe as early as the 3rd century CE, led by Attila.
Following your feedback, I have moved the page to Alchon, which avoids:
the issue of neologism that you raised;
redundancies like "Alchon Huns" and "Alchon Hunas" – i.e. since all of the Alchon were Hunas/Huns, and referred to themselves simply as "Alchon", there is no need for a qualifier (Huns/Hunas) and;
If it is the case that a majority uses a dubious name, it is also clearly a redundancy that has become semi-normalised (in much in the same way as tuna fish or "PIN number").
Which is why WP:COMMON does not necessarily require the most common name, especially if that name is demonstrably controversial or incorrect, e.g. it is: misspelled, ungrammatical, is a pleonasm (e.g. a redundancy), a neologism or anachronism, or a similar reason. Hence it's not necessarily relevant that "almost nobody in the literature uses ... Alchons ... without the suffix 'Huns'"
"As far as I know, at Wikipedia, we are not supposed to invent new terminology " – indeed, "Alchons" as plural noun is itself a neologism, since there is no evidence for an -s plural in the language of the people in question, i.e. they used Alkhon, Alxon, Alkhan, Alakhana, Walxon, Alchon etc as a genitive or plural noun (on coins etc). So even the -s in Alchons is redundant.
Coins are practically the only texts that the Alchon themselves left, so its highly significant as you yourself note that "Alchon ... is only used as an adjective as in "The Alchon coinage".
A separate search for Alkhons, Alxons, Alkhans, Alakhanas, Walxons or Alchons +huns OR +hunas -alkhon-huns -alxon-huns -alchon-huns -Alkhan-huns -Alakhana-huns -Walxon-huns -alchon-huns brought up up 166 hits.
Do you have any special problem with the name Krishna? 119.42.159.36 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have to stick with what the sources say (and what Heliodorus says on his pillar...). And anyone clicking Vasudeva will know what the relationship with Krishna is anyway. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you are trying so hard with your biased prejudised to deemphasize the connection of Heliodorus pillar with Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism is a living tradition and any naive Hindu will say unambiguously that Vasudeva is Krishna. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
October 2017
Hello, I'm Farang Rak Tham. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Greco-Buddhist art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple images
Welcome back! But I have to say you are a terrible over-user of this format. Barabar Caves is now much better illustrated, but very untidily. Single or double row mini-galleries are greatly preferable to multiple images in nearly all cases. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Johnbod for the welcome! I do appreciate! I am not so sure what you have in mind for images, so please do not hesitate to try your prefered format. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Back
Good to see you on my watchlist again. Razer(talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm In Memoriam A.H.H.. पाटलिपुत्र, thanks for creating Kunala Stupa!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Nice work on the article! However, to prove WP:NOTABLE, you need more sources. However, your article is good. Well done!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
With this edit you added a source to an unsourced quote. When I checked the source, I noted that the Hultzsch translation does not match the quote. This quote may, or may not be a faithful reproduction of a reliable academic source. Adding a source that does not match the quote does not improve this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:QUOTES for more info. JimRenge (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge: Thank you. The reference is correct, but you are right the previous translation in the article was a bit off. I'm correcting according to the source. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source because the Ashoka inscription is the main argument of the "Buddha was born in Nepal" campaign. The message of the inscription is unambiguous: Ashoka and his advisors believed that Gautama Buddha was born in Lumbini. Enthusiastic supporters of this campaign have been involved in disruptive editing on the Gautama Buddha page for some years. The article is now indefinitely protected. I think it is a good idea to prevent the manipulation of historical inscriptions/sources by campaigners. JimRenge (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge:Thanks! (and thanks for correcting a sentence that had escaped me!) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on Ashokan Edicts articles! I have been adding definitions for Ashokan Prakrit words on Wiktionary and your articles are very helpful. AryamanA(talk, contribs) 02:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AryamanA: Glad it helps!! And congratulations for your titanic work on Wikitionary! Do you know how to make links to your Wikitionary pages from Wikipedia articles? I tried [[wikitionary:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]] for Tulumaya (Ptolemy), but it doesn't seem to work... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You spelled "Wiktionary" (not "Wikitionary") incorrectly, that's all :) It should be [[wiktionary:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]] or just [[wikt:𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬#Ashokan_Prakrit|𑀢𑀼𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀬]]. AryamanA(talk, contribs) 21:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AryamanA: By the way, I have another question for you. The name "Ashoka" is written in the Maski edict as attached. To me this should be pronounced Asoka, rather than Ashoka. Can you confirm? If so, would you happen to known where the "sh" pronounciation as in the English transliteration "Ashoka" comes from? It is also spelled Asoka in this 1st-3rd century CE inscription. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name was probably re-Sanskritized at some point; perhaps the first documents confirming his identity were in Sanskrit, and were discovered before his edicts. ś → s is a regular development from Sanskrit to Ashokan Prakrit. AryamanA(talk, contribs) 14:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to inform you why I rolled back your edit on Phocas, since I failed to do so in the Rollback itself. Generally artistic renderings, be it statues, paintings, mosaics, drawings, etc, are preferred to raw coins, as the coins are often damaged or show less detail. Thanks. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, पाटलिपुत्र. You have new messages at Talk:Khalsi inscription. Message added 16:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can alse see WP:Archive for help on talk page archiving. DBigXray 16:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Bairat Temple) has been reviewed!
Hi पाटलिपुत्र, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GABgab 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Responded on the article talk page.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lygdamids
Hi, and thanks for starting the articles on the Lygdamids! One question, though: Pisindelis left his throne circa 452-449 BCE, but his son Lygdamis II died in 454 BCE, bringing the dynasty to an end? The dates don't add up. Constantine ✍ 09:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't sorted out yet the precise, exact dates according to most sources. Please correct if you can sort it out!.. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Achaemenid Satraps of Lydia
Hello पाटलिपुत्र, your edits are very appreciated on this site. However, there is a small issue, Template:Satraps of Lydia fills out too much unnecessary space. Could you perhaps make it like traditional templates a la Category:Ruler navigational boxes? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the change. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Persepolis
Hi, thank you for adding so many valuable pictures/images to Wikipedia. Really great. I was wondering; do you also have images/drawings/etc. of the destruction of Persepolis at your disposal? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Thank you! Nothing at this moment on the destruction of Persopolis, but I will keep my eyes open. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably rename these three files;
[2] "Xerxes tomb Ionian with petasos" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia"
[3] "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos soldier circa 480 BCE" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia soldier circa 480 BCE"
[4] "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos soldier circa 480 BCE cleaned up" ---> "Xerxes I tomb Ionian with petasos or kausia soldier circa 480 BCE cleaned up"
Made renaming requests. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LinuxDude (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I don't know how you tilted your table of contents but it's pretty cool. In any event please don't revert my edits to the Behistun article. Herodotus didn't know that same people were called one thing in Assyrian and another thing in Babylonian. Three separate Assyrian scholars all noted (at least 100 years ago) that the one people were called by two names. They were Sayce, Edwin Norris and Rawlinson. I went back to the source cuneiform and confirmed that Norris and Rawlinson were correct and included links to these references so people could see for themself. Accordingly when you revert you restore the Herodotus view and not the view of later Assyriologist. If you have someone who has shown Norris, Rawlinson and Sayce wrong - fine, revert. If not please let my edits stand as it reflects views more current than the ancient Greek view you restore.[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
You've filled a lot of holes in antiquity related stuff, well done and thanks. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Very much appreciated!! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Kash 95 019Hi, I've put the Kash picture you requested up, in full size so you can use it if you want. However, I'm new to Commons, have been uploading mainly mosques so far, intend to go on, and don't have a clue how to react to messages like yours. As a matter of fact, don't know if you'll find the Kash picture without my informing you it's at up. I can see it at has a link. If you could help me find the messages-part, please do. Dosseman (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frataraka and kings of Persis
From my understanding the Kings of Persis held the title of Frataraka, and there wasn't any specific 'Frataraka dynasty' that was different from that of the Kings of Persis. Shouldn't Kings of Persis be kept in the Template:History of Iran with Frataraka removed then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Hi HistoryofIran! From what I have seen, the Fratarakas were not Kings: they did not claim to be kings on their coins (whereas the Kings of Persis did), and were probably some local religious rulers or governors under the Seleucids. Conversely, the Kings of Persis were not Fratarakas, only their successors: they claimed the title of Kings, and were actually sub-Kings of the Parthian Kings for the most part. I really wouldn't mind though if you prefer to remove the Fratarakas from the Template:History of Iran, since they do not seem to have been full-fledged rulers. Up to you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, there's a lot of new stuff regarding the Kings of Persis/Frataraka here [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Iranica has a bad habit of spelling every name of its articles in a New Persian form, which is often the least used version of the name. A good example is Vahbarz, who is in reality better known as Wahbarz (such as in the source I just linked). I might do some article name moves here and there if you don't have any objection to that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Been reading about the Kings of Persis and their use of the title of Frataraka, and there doesn't seem to be any 'Frataraka dynasty'. Furthermore, the early kings of Persis are also included with the rest of the later kings as belonging to the line of Kings of Persis in both Iranica and Shayegans work (btw already under Wahbarz the kingdom of Persis declared independence per Shayegan). I'm gonna try to expand Wahbarz to GA [6] and then I'll see what I can do at the Kings of Persis and Frataraka articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: The Fratarakas and Kings of Persis are treated separately by both Shayegan (who separates "early rulers of Persis" in "two groups" p.168-, with the Fratarakas forming the first group or four or five rulers) and Encyclopedia Iranica (which has two clear separate articles: Frataraka and Kings of Persis). Iranica puts them together in one list under the title "Dynast of Persis", not "Kings of Persis", in TABLE 1. Shayegan lists them under the title "Rulers of Persis", not "Kings" in his Table 3 p.179. As known from their coinage, the Fratrakas did not have the title of Kings, and the later Kings (who had the title mlk on their coins) conversely did not have the title of Fratrakas, with one or two tansitional rulers between. Appart from their titles, they all had various levels of independence, either from the Seleucids or the Parthians. The expression "Frataraka dynasty" also seems quite current [7][8][9][10][11]. Good luck with the GA for Wahbarz! (Wahbarz wasn't King though, Shayegan only lists him as a Frataraka "early ruler of Persis" [12], and he also clearly writes p.177 that "he refrained from adopting the royal title". This will have to be corrected) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dynasts/Rulers/Kings, same same. What I'm trying to say is that they're listed as ruling the same kingdom. There weren't two separate entities in Persis during this period as Wikipedia currently lists it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Not "same same" at all, there is a big difference. A ruler, "someone who rules" can be many things, including satraps for example. A dynast is "a member of a powerful family, especially a hereditary ruler", but not necessarily a king. Shayegan clearly says that Wahbraz "refrained from adopting the royal title" [13], so there is no way he can be referred to as "King", or even as a member of the "Kings of Persis". From what I've seen, reputable sources don't present him as a "King" or a "King of Persis", only a ruler or a dynast: simply, he was a Frataraka (sub-satrap) ruler of Persis. He ruled a region or a province, not a kingdom. Fratarakas and Kings of Persis clearly form two sets of rulers, following one another chronologically, per the above references. Treating them separatly is what Encyclopedia Iranica does with two separate articles (Frataraka, Kings of Persis) as well as Shayegan. Encyclopedia Iranica clearly defines the Kings of Persis as "the Persian dynasts who between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE ruled as Parthian representatives in Persis": this has nothing to do with the Fratarakas, who date to well before the Parthian expansion. Looking forward to a great encyclopedic article on Wahbarz. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Assyria into Ur. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Generally trying to do so... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Beads
Hello, thank you for the additions on the Indian beads in Egypt. However, there are several Etched beads in the Petrie Museum. The Middle Kingdom ones are here: [[14]]. The one you depicted is much later. Check also the Museum database: http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/search.aspx best wishes from LDN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7E05:9A00:54B0:B721:2E4C:5862 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Corinthian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cythera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Narmer
Thanks for your edits on Narmer, especially the edit that fixed the format of the caption on the photo of the Narmer Palette. I tried and tried to get that result, but couldn't.Heagy1 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your valuable adds on Persian king and the defeated enemies. Your new sources make me wonder how the cylinder was misattributed to Cambyses II for the first time (a seemingly wrong information that unfortunately spreaded all across the web) rather than the plethora of other more suitable Achaemenid rulers suggested by academics. Anyway, thanks again. Khruner (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Khruner: I agree, this is rather weird. Thanks again for identifying this issue!! Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again on this seal: given that the more-or-less same scene is depicted on more than one seal, I thought that maybe it would be better to switch the article subject from the specific St. Petersburg seal to the scene itself (the title would remain the same). Your thought? Khruner (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The date on the picture caption is wrong, sources clearly mention wall construction and revetment date of 1025-955 BC, while another source mentions 700 BC for period I defensive wall construction which is shown in the picture hence 1025-700 BC caption. 175.145.218.221 (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your correction of the age of the Bhimbetka rock art at Indian painting, Indian art, and Cave paintings in India. Factually, it's fine; but there was a problem of incorrect placement of the content into the Lead of these articles, instead of into the body, where they belonged.
You've been around for some years, so no template, but you need to ensure that your article edits conform to the purpose and function of the Lead, which is to introduce and summarize the article. The lead should not contain unique information. Per MOS:LEADNO: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." And that, in turn, implies the proper sequencing of adding new content to articles, namely: "first change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body", per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
What you're not supposed to do, is add brand new information to the lead of an article, that isn't already covered in detail in the body. Unfortunately, you did that three times recently, in connection with your updates to the age of the Bhimbetka paintings, at Indian painting (diff), at Indian art (diff), and Cave paintings in India (diff). I have no quibble with your content correction but none of this should have been added to the lead; rather, you need to update the body first, and then briefly summarize it in the lead, afterwards. Also, since the body will already contain all the proper reference citations, there is no need to add references to the Lead, since it's merely summarizing the already sourced detail in the body; at least, it is, if the person who added the content to the body observed the WP:Verifiability policy, and added the required sources. (Also, adding five refs when one solid one will do, is WP:OVERCITE.)
I've fixed the first and last of these cases up for you, so you don't have to do anything for those two. However, I sure hope you're not doing the same thing on other articles, as you did on these three. If you are, then please stop. For those articles which may now be out of sync with guidelines on the lead, please consider editing them to move your unique content out of the lead and into the body, and then just briefly summarize it in the lead; no refs needed. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi would you be willing to upload the rest of the subject nations from Darius's Egyptian statue?[16] They can be used very well on Wiki. Not sure how you managed to locate the precise hieroglyphs and proper transliterations (e.g. [17]), but a great job nevertheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late response, been mad busy. If you are still willing to do it, I'd really appreciate having Cappadocia, Lydia, Armenia, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Persis, Media, Chorasmia, Kush, Arabia, and Thrace! - LouisAragon (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Welcome back! I've just uploaded the image in Commons Category:Statue of Darius I. Reading the hieroglyphs in these inscriptions is pretty easy as the characters used are just the Egyptian phonetic syllabary (see Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian)... you can even copy and paste the characters is you need to write a proper transliteration. Have fun! पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 19:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copper cast coin from Kausambi
you claim for false dating is baseless, try to read the links provided in support of the images which has been extracted directly from the source itself, since you are making accusations of false dating im attaching the text from the source itself here;
Seven punch-marked coins occurring from 5’/*. III. 10 to III. 14, include
four silver coins (Type I A) and three copper coins (Type I B). The uninscribed cast
coins have four principal types, viz. (II A) square cast, (II B) round cast, (II C)
mythical animal type and (II D) tiny cast. Square cast coins (II A) with elephant
before a standard, generally Svastika-topped, on the obverse, and tree in railing,
hollow cross, arched hill and taurine, on the reverse, available from II. 5 to III.
16, are represented by twenty-nine well-preserved specimens. The four round cast
coins (II B) having an elephant with or without rider on the obverse and arched hill
on the reverse, occur from III. 10 to III. 14. The four coins of type (II C) whh
a mythical animal, partly horse and partly bull, erroneously described as lanky
bull, before a standard, on the obverse, and tree in railing, wheel, arched hill,
Svastika and Ujjain symbol on the reverse, show more than one type of different
denominations and occur from SP. III. 12 to 5'P. III. 16. Tiny coins (II D),
eighteen in number, have probably tree in railing on the obverse and bull, horse or
elephant on the reverse. They were discovered from SP. III. 12 to IV. 20. Out
of the ten coins of the Mitra kings (Type IIIA), four are from III. 15, five from
III. 16 and one from a post-structural pit. The four Magha coins (Type III Bj
belong to SP. IV. 20.
The square uninscribed cast coins, with their uniform distribution in all the
structural periods from II. 5 to III. 10, antedate the first appearance of punch-
marked coins whose earliest occurrence is in SP. III. 10. From their frequent
association with silver punch-marked coins, it has been generally assumed that
these uninscribed cast coins are of the same date.' But the evidence of these exca-
vations suggests that cast copper coins constituted the currency of the town as in
Vidisa^ and Ujjain^, much before the introduction of silver money. The
absence of silver coins in the earlier levels may be accidental and further work
in the Gangetic Valley alone can establish the prior antiquity of cast copper
coins over punch-marked silver ones. The evidence furnished by these excavations
is significant and the priority in origin of punch-marked coins can now no
longer be taken for granted. There is no doubt, however, that these copper coins
remained in circulation along with silver and copper punch-marked coins.
Copper coins of many types and in various submultiples like Vimsatika,
Ardha and Pada \^irhsatika, Karsapana, Alasa, Kakini, Ardha Kakini are known
to Kautily'a, Panini, the Tripitaka, the Jatakas and the Srauta Sutras. ^ The
combined literary evidence, thus, clearly attests the existence of copper coins
centuries before these works were compiled The beginning of coinage can be
placed on the basis of the literary data, corroborated by the e\'idence furnished
by these excavations, in the early centuries of the first millennium B. C.'
what is the date mentioned for the square copper cast coin in this document? 168.211.113.244 (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 168.211.113.244. You are replacing proper images of coins from 150 BC-100 CE, and changing them with very poor quality and poorly sourced images claiming "9th century BC" in their caption [18]. That's clearly not an improvement. The text above only says "early centuries of the first millennium B. C." without being more precise. Your other source [19] actually shows that the IIA coins are from a period between 900 BC to 0 BC (the long bar in the graph), which is certainly quite vague and does not allow you to choose selectively the 900 BC date only. Furthermore the poor quality photograph you are using File:Kausambi coin 9th Century BC.png is seemingly copyrighted and has already been nominated for deletion. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your source for 150 BC-100 CE is dubious and unreliable, which is based on a private coin auctioning website and not an academic document, your claim for copyright is also false, since the copyright is from 1960 which has already expired, you assertion on IIA coins between 900 BC to 0 BC (the long bar in the graph) which is certainly quite vague and does not allow you to choose selectively the 900 BC date only is explained by the text which places the squared copper cast coins in the early centuries of the first millennium BC and the table which also places the coin below in the 9th century BC. 168.211.113.244 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Don't change without knowing about tamil brahmi
If you having any proof or article plz mentioned it to us,i will send you lots of proof. Kkkraj (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kkkraj: You just need to provide reputable sources for your claims. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 08:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May be central government have not official announced it yet,some politically behind it,but it will be done soon.then i will definitely changing it, kindly read out to those above articles Kkkraj (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 1,00,000 (100,000) odd inscriptions found by the Archaeological Survey of India, about 60,000 were in Tamil Nadu, of these 60,000 inscriptions, only about 5 per cent were in other languages such as Telugu, Kannada, Sanskrit and Marathi, the rest were in Tamil. Over 25,000 Kannada inscriptions were unearthed in Karnataka, though an in depth study of many of these is yet to be conducted according to Hampi Kannada University Sociology department Head and Researcher Devara Kondareddy. Kkkraj (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have some proper new sources regarding the Kidarites / Central and South Asia, perhaps they could be of help to you? I can send them to you via mail if you want. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HistoryofIran:! Thank you very much, I am very interested. I have just enabled my e-mail feature (I think..). Tell me if it does not work... पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 10:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you a mail, you just need to reply so I can send the files. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read your mail properly as I was half-asleep. I've send you the files, not to the mail you asked me to but your Wiki account. Did you get them? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
″== A plea for cooperation - and I've sent you two more sources ==
Could you for the love of god pls be more cooperative, you're giving me anxiety attacks. I can't be arsed to look through what you've done to the Peroz I Kushanshah and possibly clean up after you again. Also do mind this is a GA article, so please be at least more thorough (the sources have to be alphabetic for starters, also every addition HAS to be sourced, *looks at the Anahita bit*). Also I've sent you two more sources from Rezakhani about the Alkhans and Kidarites, what a nice guy I am. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Well, the coin descriptions are I think well done with some of the most recent and authoritative sources. I've reduced the coin captions and developed the descriptions in the body per our discussion. I will look at your mail. Best पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I gotta admit this overhaul of yours seems decent enough. If you do it like that everytime then you won't hear any objections from me. Sorry if I appear arrogant or authorative sometimes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, what do you think about the Ardashir II and Varahran II bit? [20] Think they should get removed as articles? --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know yet, and I'm going to have to reduce contributions (real life calling). Good luck with your investigations!! पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't have any objections, then I'm gonna redirect Ardashir II to Ardashir I, and Varahran II to Varahran I, since according to new research by Cribb and Rezakhani, they don't seem to have existed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, we can always resuscitate them if needed :) पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 09:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you two more sources, mainly regarding coins. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maues King of Taxila: An Indo-Greek Kingdom with a Saka King
Do you have access to JSTOR? There is a source which you may find interesting [21] If not, I can always email it to you if you want. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You should apply for access to JSTOR through Wikipedia, I'm sure your request will be accepted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely failed to find this on the BM online database, which is massive, but often quirky to search. Any ideas? Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samudragupta into Gupta art. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Hi Dianaa! I think it might be the other way around, as I copied this content from Gupta art to Samudraguptawith attribution[23], about 1 hour after I had created the content in Gupta art[24]. And I thought it was not even necessary to attribute one's own content, although I generally try to do it.... Or maybe the Bot just saw a similar quote from a reference in this contribution [25], which I don't thing counts as requiring user attribution since the external source is already attributed in the ref. Can you confirm and strike out your warning if it's the case? पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have double checked, and it looks like it's a false positive. Sorry for the mistake. Attributing copying of one's own prose is indeed a good idea, though legally it's not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newly set-up. Anything to add? Johnbod (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Great! I've added the Vasu Doorjamb Inscription, which although mainly about the inscription also describes the artistic aspects of the artefact. Please revert if necessary. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 09:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
On 17 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gupta art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient Gupta art of India includes gold coins commemorating the AshvamedhaVedic horse sacrifice (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gupta art. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gupta art), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You started heavy edits on Vaishnavism related article such as Heliodorus pillar, Vasudeva, Vaishnavism to counter the well-known evidences with less reliable and less known articles. My objections are 1) Especially, Heliodorus pillar is well-known fact about earliest evidence of western convert to Hinduism, which is acknowledged by all well-renowned Indologists both from east and west including E. Bryant, Romila Thapar, Thomas Hopkins, A. Basham, Burjor Avari. The view of Harry Falk is problemetic for two reasons. First, it just mentioned in one line towards the end of his article which was of different focus than history of Vaishnavism. Second, he did not put any justifications why Heliodorus mentioned HIMSELF as a Bhagavata, not mentioning Vasudeva as a deity or your so-called Vrishni hero. Even if I agree on his view point, its not worthy of mentioning it in the lead. Lead is supposed to be succint and only contains summary, not a paragraph dedicated to a single author for a counter-view point. They, why didnot you spend 5 more paragraphs first describing each of the five main indologists I mentioned?
2) you have started putting too much emphasis on calling Bhagavata a cult? Is not it offence to Hinduism or out-right Hinduphobic? Bhagavata Purana and Bhagavad Gita, which all talks about Bhagavan and Bhagavatas are the most prominent Smriti text of Hinduism and principal texts of Vaishnavism. Can you call Catholic church as pagan cult later adopting Jesus as a part of Trinity? or Buddism as a Sharmanic cult? This is the reason so many Hindus these days are getting angry on so-called intellectuals with western bias who wants to delegetimize every thing of Hindu origin and make it either a cult of cow, curry and caste. I understand the original Indologists of early 20th century can talk in that language with their colonial racist mind, but in todays world Hinduism is the third largest religion and Bhavata is no more a cult, rather a well-known most followed Hindu denomination of Vaishnavism. I am not saying that you should not cite them, but please stop refering it as a cult, no modern Indologists like E. Bryant, W. Doniger consider Bhagavata as a cult now, rather just the early evidence of Vaishnavism sect of Hinduism.
@Sanjoydey33: I am not sure I should waste my time with someone who posts repeately "Jesus was a mythical demon and a dog" and similar sentences [27][28]. These are blockable offenses, in addition to the fact that you have been deleting referenced material. Anyway... Harry Falk is one of the foremost Indologists of our time. His opinion is highly significant, and deserves mention, especially since he challenges and balances the popular notion that "Heliodorus converted to Vaishnavism". Per Wikipedia rules, we are not supposed to take side, but rather to present the various major opinions on any given subject. If we say that Heliodorus converted to Vaishnavism, we have to mention that there are significant alternative views. Regarding your second point, I don't bother about the word "cult", and again, if this is what the sources say, we have to follow them. Religion is OK as well, when the source uses this expression. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 1
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hi, You asked a while back about later Mathura sculpture. I recently got a (ffreakishly cheap on Amazon) copy of Pal, Pratapaditya, Indian Sculpture: Volume II, 1988, LACMA/University of California Press, ISBN 0520064771, 9780520064775, the catalogue of the LACMA collection covering "c. 700 - 1800", with good introductory sections. The only mentions of Mathura (per the index) are to influences from earlier stuff. So, as we thought. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you have a look at this edit made by a new user? Seems some puffery in there. Regrds. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fylindfotberserk:! The language is quite flowery, but sourced indeed (almost perfect copy, but just two lines...). Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 13:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I would like to request your help in editing this article Open defecation. There are misrepresented and biased article posts done by people with anti-indian sentiments and i have appallingly found myself banned. I am not fond of editing here so i request if you could help on this issue. I refer to the section on "India and Hinduism". Thanks --Hari147 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sîn-irībam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mopswade (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your message. I do have pictures of some of those objects : the macehead of Sharkalisharri and the bowl of Meskiagnun. They are not good pictures though, you can't see the inscriptions very well (also the display of the second one in the case is a bit weird, the inscription being at the opposite of the viewer). I'll upload them anyway, you'll be able to see if it can be of some use for you, they are still better than the ones already uploaded. I'm supposed to come back in the British Museum in september or october (obviously depending it will be open or not), then I'll be able to take better pictures. I don't prioritize taking pictures of royal inscriptions since there are already a lot of them on Commons (too much to illustrate the articles I write), but feel free to request pictures of other objects you're interested in to illustrate articles. And since I live in Paris, you can ask the same for the Louvre (it may be faster, but I don't know when it will be open again). Regards, Zunkir (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately I dont have pictures of those objects. And about the Stele of Vultures, I dont know what happened: all the "official" photos I checked are like the one of 1969 (including the first edition of 1901 by Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, and the publication in Art of the First Cities in 2003, or the study of the stele by Irene Winter). Regards. Zunkir (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing, but I only found a mention of a restauration in 1937, so it's too soon. The only way to find the answer would be to ask directly the Louvre, but we wouldn't get a source that could be used in WP. Zunkir (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NBPW
Hi, what issues do you have regarding Michael Danino's article? Zombie gunner (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Re-read. Should be OK for the 1300 BCE date. Please quote the source and give page number so that others can check more easily. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kadamba Prakrit
Hi, you have also revered another source without reason, even though the content has been picked up from another article Edakkal Caves and has been there for a good amount of period, please explain. Zombie gunner (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just copy material without checking the source and use it as an argument (Wikipedia is not considered as a reputable source in itself). You'll need to check the source and please quote, so that we can double-check. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
There are short references to Mark 2014 and Mark 2009 in there, but there are no full citations to go with them. Would you mind adding those? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say: in spite of our differences on the talk page, Hyksos is one of the first articles I can remember where I'm not the only person trying to add/edit content when I've decided to improve/expand an article that was formerly in pretty bad shape. It's a great pleasure to work with you!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich: Thank you Ermenrich, same here. Nice to find a user interested in truely improving content in this kind of specialized, but how important, historical article. I'll have to take a short break though, good luck with editing! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 21:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My source is not just the opinion of one scholar, but rather dozens of the leading scholars in 3rd Millenium BCE chronology. Gianni Marchesi's paper was presented before several other experts in the field and was approved for publication as part of the ARCANE project. Nicolo Marchetti, Piotr Steinkeller, and C. Mittermayer have all independently verified his interpretation of the inscription citing Mebaragesi as king. One of the proponents of the your view even attended Marchesi's presentation of his research as well and approved it. You have provided no alternatives in the sources, so for now I believe this is the best position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-Pabilsag (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ur-Pabilsag: (great name!). It seems your dates (2900-2800 BCE) are quite early compared to consensus, and I did not find them in Marchetti, which you had referenced (he only says ED1), so I'm getting a bit sceptical. Can you give actual quotes from your sources, so that they can be checked? Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello पाटलिपुत्र,
I noticed that you have used the term consensus rather loosely, could you please provide up-to-date instances of scholars in this field examining the inscriptional evidence to derive a 2600 date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-Pabilsag (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ur-Pabilsag: For example [29]. Now, you are the one who wants to change article content, so you are the one supposed to provide sources for your claim. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: I provided four independent sources for my claim, which would all support the reading Marchesi takes; Enmebaragesi is in Early Dynastic I, and can be no later than 2700 BC. I believe we should work towards an agreed date range, as we are both clearly not going to change our minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-Pabilsag (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ur-Pabilsag: Your sources are uncheckable and you are not giving exact quotes, and the one source you gave that can be cheked just says ED1, which is not equivalent with your "2900-2800 BCE" date. Either you can give exact quotes backing up you claim, or just leave it as is. I am showing you three recent reputable sources which confirm 2600 BCE as the date for this ruler: [30][31][32], which you can actually read and check for yourself. Can you do the same for your "2900-2800 BCE" claim??? पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @पाटलिपुत्र,
I have provided one of my sources below (see pages 23-24). These pages discuss the orgin of the sign for Kish, and determine that Kish originates from the sign for a bull, or Aurox if you will. Using this knowledge combined with the fact that the sign for Kish on Enmebaragesi's inscription closely resembles the sign for an aurox, we can establish this inscription is of an earlier date (more specifically EDI).
[1]
I don't think Mittermayer specifically says that Enmebaragesi is dated to 2900-2800 BCE, neither does Marchesi, who only says ED1. At this point, looking at the sources, I think we can only say that Enmeberagesi is generally dated to circa 2600 BCE [33][34][35] or 2700 BCE [36][37], and that Marchesi broadly attributes him to Early Dynastic I (which is itself dated to: Middle Chronology: 2900–2750/2700 BCE, Short Chronology: 2800–2600 BCE). Keeping in mind that Enmebaragesi is the penultimate king of the First Dynasty of Kish, which puts him at the end of the period, all these dates are fairly consistent at 2700-2600 BCE. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing the majority view of scholars at Hyksos?
I have posted the majority view of scholars, as it states quite clearly in Faust, p.476, but also on pages 467-475. And the quote from Bietak was taken out of context and excluded the subsequent sentence elaborating his views on the connection between an Israelite exodus narrative and the Hyksos. I have included it, as it should be, because the previous version distorts his view by selectively taking it out of context. See Talk:Book of Exodus. Greumaich (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gebel el-Arak Knife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian.
Hey, sending this message to you since you were one of the main authors of the Mauryan Empire page who is still active. I'm by no means anywhere near a subject matter expert on this topic but from what I know the origins of the dynasty are unclear. Yet, the first line of the section on Founding in the article suggests that the Mauryas are the same as a republican tribe called the Mauryas of Pippalivana, which is cited to a 1924 article of the Royal Asiatic Society. Is this accurate or in case it's a theory doesn't it violate due weight? Should such a dated source even be used in the first place? Tayi ArajakateTalk 14:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi पाटलिपुत्र, seeing your contribution to the Sasanian coinage of Sindh article, you don't happen to possess the file for "The Coinages of Paradan and Sind in the Context of Kushan and Kushano-Sasanian Numismatics"? Or the whole "The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion" for that matter? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Torpakh Kala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Northern Escapee (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MacGregor plaque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos.
If any of above fits in your area of interest or if you come across suitable reference during your encyclopedic research journey, then please do give thought to support expansion of any of above topic areas.
The Coinages of Paradan and Sind in the Context of Kushan and Kushano-Sasanian Numismatics
This might be of use as well [38], the files expire in 5 days, so better grab them now while you can :d. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A special thank you for your major contribution towards articles related to pre-Islamic Afghanistan, especially the Turko-Hephtalite era. Keep on doing what you are doing, we need more people like you! Xerxes931 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have moved the article about Nana from "Kushan goddess" to "Bactrian goddess"
"Kushan" is a sloppy categorization, I’ve never heard of another case of a royal family being the namesake of a whole pantheon.Hence Bactrian or Tokhari would be a better classification if our goal is to distinguish how people called and emphasized their gods in Tokharistan and its vassal states in contrast to say Sogdia or Parthia. Wiki isn’t about inventing new classifications though but simply used what’s commonly agreed upon in literature. Can you maybe look over the article and perhaps help improving it further? Thanks --Xerxes931 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xerxes931: Quite fine with me. She was worshipped much beyond Bactria, including India, Sogdia etc..., but was probably centered on Bactria indeed. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turk Shahis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages AH and Khorasan.
G'day पाटलिपुत्र, just a heads-up that Corinthian War is on the list (WP:URFA/2020) of old FAs that need checking ahead of a possible FAR. I had a quick look, and there are a few issues, but it wouldn't take much to bring it back up to solid FA. Given you were the major contributor, would you mind having a crack at it? I'd be happy to c/e after everything was checked/cited etc. Let me know? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Peacemaker67:! I am afraid I don't quite have the endurance to deal with upgrading articles for FAs (all the technical formatting and all that...). I'm also a bit busy right now. Sorry for that! Best regards. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2900 BC: North-westward migrations carrying Corded Ware culture, transforming into Bell Beaker; according to Anthony, westward migration west of Carpatians into Hungary as Yamnaya, transforming into Bell Beaker, possibly ancestral to Indo-Celtic (disputed).
2700 BC: Second eastward migration starting east of Carpatian mountains as Corded Ware, transforming into Fatyanovo-Balanova (2800 BCE) -> Abashevo (2200 BCE)-> Sintashta (2100-1900 BCE)-> Andronovo (1900-1700 BCE) -> Indo-Aryans.
I love maps, but see this map. Your map has the westward-migration starting from too far north-east; the Dniepr-valley is essential. Also, a migration southward east of the Caspian Sea is probably not realistic; the migration went via the Inner Asia mountain corridor. And the Danube Valley as the (/a) place of origin for Yamnaya-related migrations is questionable, though it is what Anthony argues for. Spread of some Indo-European from there, with Bell Beaker, is also a possibility. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Hi Joshua. I've tweaked the map in order to match very precisely the arrows and colored shapes on the map in reference (their map is skewed, so I adjusted to my projection quite precisely). Hopefully, their map is geographically correct. What do you think? There is not much more I can do if I am to respect the source.... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. The original map itself is inaccurate, in the respects mentioned above. So, I would opt for inclusion of other sources. Coincidentally, I started to piece together an "Atlas of the Indo-Europeans" for private use, triggered by the map byNordqvist and Heyd; very usefull. The relation between Hungarian Yamnaya, Bell Beaker, and the roots of Italo-Celtic is disputed. Yamnaya into Hungary followed the Danube river; eventual further migrations followed the Danube further upstream (not over the Alpine mountain ramnge, of course!), and then possibly the Rhine. @Joe Roe: would you know more about the current ideas of Hungarian Yamnaya -> western European Bell Beakers? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Regarding [39], could you upload your own map under a different name, since my map is already based on a specific reference. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 08:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I've added references. That's Wikipdia: free to edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry, but this is not proper etiquette on Commons [40]. Please re-upload your own file and revert. Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 09:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But in that case, note that your map is incorrect, and as such not useable, to my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: It's OK, you can very well use your synthetic map in the articles, that's very good. My map is not "wrong" per se, it just reflects one (good) source, and I'd like to keep it for what it is, if only as a reference. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 09:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry to be a pain, but since your map is derived from mine, you have to use the "extracted from" template with authorship attribution: {{extracted from|File:Yamnaya Steppe Pastoralists.jpg}}, that's standard procedure on Commons. By the way, thanks for the improvements! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 09:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm the pain in the ass, I guess... (Narasimhan et al. surely hadn't their Hungarian Yamana's climb the Alps, but take the easy route over the rivers). Your effort is a good start to finally replace this infamous map, which still needs improvement, so thank you for your effort. But replacing that one that will be a hell of a job... Thanks for the template; I'll add it. NB: I noticed another problem with the Narasimhan map: Afanisievo is pre-Yamnaya. 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm aleady doubting again. Anthony (2007) says Repin, but Narasimhan et al. (2019) says early Yamnaya; Anthony is co-author. And the dates as given in the Wiki-articles do match up (both 3300 BCE). Nice arrows, by the way ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I am surprised that there is not even an article on the Repin culture in Wikipedia. Tell me if you find a solution, I'll adjust the map. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to burst in without reading the full context, but I have to say that neither of these maps sit right with me. The "infamous" IE expansion spaghetti map mentioned above has indeed lingered on many pages for far too long, and while these are an improvement in terms of verifiability, I don't think replacing it with an updated version of the same format is the way to go. As I see it there are two major problems with this kind of map:
We have to be very careful with synthesis when it comes to these big maps. Both the arrow format and captions strongly imply a directed migration of people from the Yamnaya core. But if you look at the original caption in Nordqvist and Heyd, they are careful to label it as "interconnections of societies" rather than migration. In the map itself, only some links are specifically attributed to migration; others have more vague labels (including the hilarious Transformation of Yamnaya to Corded Wares – bringing to mind burial minds metamorphosing into decorated pots). This reflects the fact that, although aDNA studies have recently put prehistoric population movements back on the agenda, the idea of "mass migrations" remains extremely contentious amongst prehistorians, and the mechanisms by which genes and languages spread from the steppe is still unclear and hotly debated. This is discussed in the Nordqvist and Heyd paper and many of their references. As for Anthony 2007, it's been a while since I read the book—and of course it was also published before the aDNA revolution—but as far as I remember he is very reluctant to speculate about movements of people beyond the initial expansion of herding economies in the steppe post-Yamnaya. I also don't recall him including a synthetic map like this, probably for this very reason. And if scholars are cautious about drawing definitive lines on maps, we need to be doubly so.
The arrows-on-a-map format itself is inherently misleading. I feel like I read a paper about this once, in the context of hominid dispersals, but I can't find it now. In any case, the discussion above already brings out some of the problems with it. It's not obvious to the reader if an arrow represents the precise route of a migration or a just the general direction from point A to be B. For that matter, there's no clear indication of what the arrows represent (archaeological cultures? languages? genes? ethnic groups?) and by extension what them splitting and merging signifies. The overall impression of a mass of people barrelling across empty continents with a destination in mind, but if we know anything for sure it's that that isn't what happened. The spread of Yamnaya genes was a slow diffusion through an existing human population. We don't know exactly how it happened, but it must have involved a mix of cultural interaction and demic diffusion, varying by region, and probably involving a lot of stops-and-starts, back-and-forth movements, etc. I don't think the arrows-on-a-map format can convey any of that to our readers.
I think it is possible to come up with an improved map that is rigorously sourced and doesn't over-simplify, perhaps based on this or this. In any case the most important thing is to be careful not to conflate information on cultural, genetic, and linguistic diffusions – either in the maps themselves or the way they're used in articles. They are separate processes and there is no scientific consensus on how they interacted in prehistory. – Joe (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Thank you Joe for your cogent comments! I am afraid we need simplified (simplistic?) material and maps for the general public and non-specialists (me included), otherwise we have no clues what these cultures are, where they are located, and how they more or less relate to each other. The map above is indeed only intended as an improvement from the infamous "spaghetti map", although it is sourced from three very reliable and up-to-date sources. Then, I do agree we need specialist discussions about all the nuances and caveats of such maps. So I guess the question is: how can we make simplistic, yet informative, maps for the general public, which, at the same time are just acceptable (tolerable?) to the specialists.... Should it be in the caption, with some sort of disclaimer or "warning statement" which could be a one-line synthesis of your above statement? Should it be with fuzzy arrows? I am open to suggestions. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the goal of any map should be to simplify without misleading; and on Wikipedia maps without unduly synthesising. Sometimes, that might just be a case of recognising that you can't show something on a single map in an acceptable way. In this case, I would say that a combined map of "Indo-European migrations" incorporating the linguistic, genetic, and archaeological information, is impossible given the current state of knowledge. What we can do is help the reader with separate maps showing the extent of archaeological cultures in different periods, maps showing the continuous spread of "steppe herder" ancestry (i.e. like these), and maybe also languages (but that's probably the hardest). The captions should make it clear that that is what they show and probably avoid the controversial word "migration" all together. I have an idea for the second, which I'll try to work on today. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bronze Age spread of Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry into two subcontinents—Europe and South Asia"@Joe Roe: Thank you Joe, I will be looking forward to your map. Please note that my initial map (to the right, the other map above being derived by Joshua from this one) is not a synthesis at all, and is directly and precisely referenced from the main map in Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, Nick; Moorjani, Priya; Rohland, Nadin; Bernardos, Rebecca (6 September 2019). "The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia". Science. 365 (6457). doi:10.1126/science.aat7487. ISSN0036-8075.. I trust that if Narasimha can show a global map such as this one, then there is no reason we can't. Narasimha's analysis is genetic of course, and he entitles the paragraph for the map: "The Bronze Age spread of Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry into two subcontinents—Europe and South Asia." To your point, he is rather cautious with his characterization of the arrows as "Flow of Yamnaya-derived ancestry". I am quite confortable with this exact wording, indeed avoiding simplifications such as "migrations", in order to reflect exactly Narasimhan's intent, with attribution. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 09:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'd missed that source sorry. I agree there's no synth there, as long as we stick to describing it as Narasimhan et al. do; 'ancestry flow' might come across as a bit jargon-y, but it's really not the same thing as 'migration'. Also, I think the small pie charts are an important element of the original map that is missing from this version. They show, for example, that the proportion of Yamnaya ancestry quickly drops below less than 50% outside the immediate steppe zone, which is a major clue that the mechanism that spread their genes was not as simple as migration. It also gives some indication of what the end points of the arrows are supposed to be (i.e. regional ancient populations, rather than exact locations). Maybe those could be added? – Joe (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, पाटलिपुत्र. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hephthalites, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Later Han and Beishi.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being kind. I really appreciate it. Look forward in reading your awesome content creation. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your message. I wish you a happy Holiday season, and best wishes for the New Year. Zunkir (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Book ReOrienting the Sasanians by Khodadad Rezakhani.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Book ReOrienting the Sasanians by Khodadad Rezakhani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Searching for Qajar Iran-Russia (Caucasus) related pics
Hey there man! Hope you are doing well. I wanna try and raise additional articles related to the wars between (Qajar) Iran and Russia in the Caucasus to GA level. I was wondering, would you be able to find me some additional pictures in relation to this topic? Miniatures, paintings, etc.? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Hi LouisAragon! I am not sure I can be of much help in this area... I'll keep my eyes open in case I see something interesting. Cheers, and could luck with the expansion! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Any work would be appreciated. : -) - LouisAragon (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Fine Arts
The Barnstar of Fine Arts
Many thanks for improving the encyclopedia's coverage of art-related topics with your expansion of Central Asian artJohnbod (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Woahh, many thanks, thank you so much Johnbod! I was just trying to fill a gap, but I greatly appreciate, especially coming from such an art afficionado! Much remains to be done on this subject, it's just a start really, so do jump in if so inclined! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I may at some point, but not for a while. Btw, you should set up archives here - let me know if you need help. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indo-Greek Kingdom into Greek conquests in India. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
--DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334085135){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_I_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos_soldier_circa_480_BCE.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334085020){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Xerxes_I_tomb_Ionian_with_petasos_soldier_circa_480_BCE_cleaned_up.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=334084995){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darius_I_statue_Parthia.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yamnaya_Steppe_Pastoralists.jpg&diff=515554026&oldid=515552097){kind=link}
