User talk:Antiquistik

Welcome to Wikipedia! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Antiquistik (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hiy 75.230.58.49 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome "to Wikipedia" Antiquistik!

MESSAGE FOR REGISTERED USERS - "Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 41,257,266 registered editors!"

Hello Antiquistik. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Blindlynx, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. IP's ADVISED TO CREATE AN ACCOUNT.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can REGISTERED USERS CAN CREATE THEIR OWN SANDBOX for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put a link to it on your user page. REGISTERED USERS WITH NO USER PAGE ENCOURAGED TO CREATE IT.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your EITHER "signature" OR "IP address", a link to EITHER "this IP's" OR "your" talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, —blindlynx (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Thanks for the welcome. Antiquistik (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Loriyan Tangai

Hello Antiquistik! If you feel like it, you could fill in the Kharoshthi text for the Loriyan Tangai Buddha inscription ... There is a nice photograph of the inscription on Commons: File:Loriyan Tangai Kharoshthi inscription of the year 318.jpg. If you have a lot of time and endurance, Shinkot casket or Bimaran casket could be other ones. Best! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Award

		The Ancient Scripts award
		Many thanks for improving the encyclopedia's coverage of inscriptions in the Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts! Not everyone can fluently edit Kharosthi as you do... I am looking forward to more of your future contributions! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: you can decorate your User Page by copy-pasting the above content. It will be a nice start! पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the award. I've added the original Kharosthi script of the inscriptions to all three, although I wasn't able to find the full Kharosthi text of the already translated Shinkot casket inscription, so I didn't fill out the lacunae. Antiquistik (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Magnificient! Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Antiquistik! If you have time and patience, here are a few more tricky ones: Kanishka casket, Rukhuna reliquary, Wardak Vase, Brussels Buddha, Bajaur casket, Silver Reliquary of Indravarman. In case you are as comfortable with Aramaic as you are with Kharosthi: Aramaic Inscription of Taxila, Aramaic Inscription of Laghman, Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription. Thank you so much again! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

[1] Very impressive! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha thanks a lot! I appreciate it. And do tell me if you find any material that'll allow me to fill the lacunae of the Shinkot casket. Antiquistik (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

.... and in case you also know Sogdian Stamp seal (BM 119999)... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added the Kharosthi texts to the Brussels Buddha, Bajaur casket and Silver Reliquary of Indravarman articles. However I can't find any picture of the whole inscriptions for the Kanishka casket, Rukhuna reliquary and Wardak Vase to be able to add the Kharosthi texts as accurate to the original inscriptions. I'll work on the Aramaic inscriptions tomorrow, and I'll give it a try for the Sogdian one too. Antiquistik (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Antiquistik! Yes, that's difficult. I can send you high-res pictures of the Rukhuna reliquary though. For this you would have to activate an e-mail address in the "Preferences" settup of your account (use an e-mail address that does not reveal your identity, in order to maintain privacy), then send me a Wikipedia e-mail through the "Email this user" tag on my user page. Then, I can send the images directly to your e-mail address. Best regards पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have also completed the Rukhuna reliquary. I'll try to see if I can find any pictures of the inscriptions of the Kanishka casket and the Wardak Vase and add the Kharosthi inscriptions to their pages. Antiquistik (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you so much! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I have finally added the Kharosthi text to the Kanishka casket and the Wardak Vase too. And, again, please do let me know if you learn of any material that will allow me to fill the lacunae of the Shinkot casket. Antiquistik (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A barnstar for your dedication to the Egyptology universe of Wikipedia! CaeserKaiser (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! Antiquistik (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Akkadian cuneiform

Hello! I saw that you replaced some of the image files of cuneiform in the articles on the Neo-Babylonian kings with the actually typed out scripts. I think an issue here is that the unicode akkadian cuneiform is the antique (Sumerian-esque) signs, which had developed to look considerably different by the time of the Neo-Babylonian kings, so it might be misleading. The image files were supposed to be more contemporary renditions (which are not available in unicode format). The signs used in the images do not look the same as the signs used in the scripts, though they represent earlier and later versions of the same ones. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Hello. I am sorry, I wasn't aware of this issue. Should I revert these edits? Antiquistik (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's no problem. In the best of all possible worlds there would be unicode versions of the neo-assyrian and neo-babylonian akkadian signs. I'm undecided myself as to what the best solution is, but I think we should either 1) use the unicode renditions (correct spelling but given the antiquated signs not how these kings would have spelled their own names), 2) use the image files (contemporary signs but feels a bit wonky) or 3) not provide the cuneiform rendition at all but just the transliterated Akkadian name. One argument in favor of dropping the cuneiform entirely would be that spellings could vary greatly: Nebuchadnezzar II's name could be spelled with 3 signs or with 10 signs, both producing "Nabû-kudurri-uṣur". IMO the unicode version sadly doesn't work well for these late figures but I'd be eager to read your opinion as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: In this case, I'd opt for using the images until a unicode encoding of Neo-Babylonian cuneiform is available. Antiquistik (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I've also noticed the template doesn't convert the sign 𒌶 to its Neo-Assyrian form. Do you know where or who should I address this problem to? Antiquistik (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually believed that Neo-Assyrian was not supported either, but looking at the template page I can see that Neo-Assyrian is the only signs other than Classical Sumerian which are supposed to be implemented. I can't get it to work either but it's also an issue given that Neo-Assyrian signs are arguably even more different from the Classical Sumerian ones than Neo-Babylonian signs are. I've asked about this at Template talk:Script. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Thanks for asking about it! Yes, the Neo-Assyrian display does work for me when using the 7, except occasionally for a sign or two, such as for 𒌶. Antiquistik (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken I can't seem to get it to work at all so that's strange! Do 𒀭𒈗𒃻𒌦 and 𒀭𒈗𒃻𒌦 look different to you (they look the exact same to me - is the problem on my end)? The Neo-Assyrian rendition is supposed to be something like . Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Yes, they display differently for me. Here is how they look to me:

Antiquistik (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What the hell lol. Thanks for showing me, good to see that it at least partially works as intended for some people. I've added this to my question at the talk page as well since people seeing the template differently seems to be an issue then as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I suspect you might need to install some fonts on whatever device you are using for them to display. Do try this, and maybe that might solve your issue. Antiquistik (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I'll look into it, thank you. Good to see that it at least partially works as intended. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scythian religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian. 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) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agathyrsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thracian religion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coronis and Strongyle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gyges of Lydia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy-paste for moving articles

Hi. Please do not do a copy-paste for moving articles as you did at Ramayana. Please read thru Help:How to move a page — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Moves with addition of diacritics

Though diacritics are neither encouraged nor discouraged on wikipedia, Indian and Hindu article names generally use names without IAST diacritics. Yaksha is preferred over yakṣa. Merriam webster, Britannica use yaksha or rakshasa [2][3], rather than the IAST. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Similarly Ajatashatru and Bimbisara are common names in English. [4][5]. Kindly move articles only after referencing if an common English name is not available or is the current name. You may also use WP:RM for generating a WP:CONSENSUS before moving an article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Antiquistik! I suppose you know what you are doing (as has been clear in the past), but many of your recent edits seem a bit drastic. Can you explain in essence what they are about? Also, I would recommend that you never make an edit without an edit summary, that should give a bit of background and clarify your intentions. Best regards! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I saw certain article page names having the diacritics accurate to their scholarly transliteration while some did not have the diacritics, so I tried to standardise them so they would all have the diacritics in the page names. I've since been told that my renamings were not appropriate, so I reversed them. Although I am still puzzled as to why there is a disparity in form. Antiquistik (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems OK, but please keep on with "Edit summaries". Best! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No move discussions started

Please reverse your changes to Shakya and Sakya. Such page moves require a move discussion, which you did not initiate. Please put them back and start the discussion so we can see if there is a consensus for your arbitrary moves which have broken numerous links throughout many articles. Skyerise (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: which changes specifically? I've worked on those pages a number of times over the last few days, so I'll need some precision. Although, in the case of the broken links, I can correct this issue manually, if you are ok with it. Antiquistik (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Move reverted.

Your undiscussed move of Sakya has been reverted. Please file a proper request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. BD2412 T 01:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gandhara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Chedi kingdom

Hello mughal son i saw you removed many information in chedi kingdom while sources support that information 2409:4053:C84:5862:0:0:8889:806 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dahae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dehestan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Buli (tribe) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Buli (tribe), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Bhagga moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bhagga, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Massagetae into Tomyris. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Scythian religion into several other pages. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Script templates

I see that you have been making excellent contributions to wiki on Scythian and Hellenistic topics (among many other things), but unfortunately I have to object to your use of the Greek and Latin script templates. This is completely out of step with what is done on all other articles (cf. featured articles like Antiochus XI Epiphanes, Jesus#The_name_of_Jesus, Cleopatra, Macedonia (ancient kingdom)). In fact, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Script/Greek&limit=500 and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Script/Classical_and_Medieval_Latin indicate that you are the sole (or almost the sole) user of Script/Greek and Script/Latin. The script template renders Greek in a font that is more difficult to read than the standard wiki font, so it isn't an improvement. It is certainly unnecessary for Latin, which uses the same script as English and which again it renders in a fiddlier, less legible font. Furius (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: What is the point of having these templates on Wikipedia if they are not meant to be used by anyone, though? That is quite odd. Antiquistik (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is odd. The template seems to be useful/essential for other scripts, but the inclusion of Greek and Latin in the template seems to me to have been a mistake, since they are both represented fine by the standard wiki font and the conditions mention by the template page ("better typefaces and/or typefaces that support uncommon scripts and/or bigger size text") don't seem to apply. At any rate, I can't see a discussion anywhere on the template page that explains why Greek and Latin were included or attempts to develop a consensus for the template's use with Greek or Latin. Furius (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: I understand, and I have corrected the pages and have removed those script templates. I will also stop using them and do corrections on the pages where I have already used them. Antiquistik (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's really helpful. I want to reiterate what I opened with, which is that your work on Scythian and Hellenistic topics is really excellent and I look forward to reading more of it. Furius (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content

I think you need to see these removal of content (which were likely added by you) where the user claims it to be unsourced but source is there [6] [7]. 117.201.116.209 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits. Thanks for alerting me. Antiquistik (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A recent article (2022) about the Scythian genealogies

Hello, Antiquistik. I found on the De Gruyter site, via the Wikipedia Library, another article on the Herodotean account of the Scythian genealogical myth. Considering you are the one expanding the Scythian portions of the site, I thought I would first let you know.

• Redondo, Jordi. "The Herodotean Myth on the Origin of the Scythians". Myth and History: Close Encounters, edited by Menelaos Christopoulos, Athina Papachrysostomou and Andreas P. Antonopoulos, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2022, pp. 167-186. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9783110780116-011

PS: After seeing your edits, I could never fathom the Scythians were such a rich and interesting people! KHR FolkMyth (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Thanks. I do intend to add the information from this paper to the entries relating to the Scythians eventually. Antiquistik (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Antiquistik, speaking of which, I found a book chapter on the "Heracles Scythicus", possibly with more information on Hercules as the ancestor of the Scythians.

• Podossinov, Alexander V. “HERACLES CELTICUS AND HERACLES SCYTHICUS: THE SAME NARRATIVE IN THE WEST AND THE EAST OF EUROPE?” Connecting the Ancient West and East: Studies Presented to Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, edited by J. Boardman et al., vol. 8, Peeters Publishers, 2022, pp. 1291–306. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2zx9pwv.84. Accessed 11 Nov. 2022.

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Thanks for bringing this new source to my attention. Antiquistik (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Antiquistik. sorry for returning to this, but have you seen this article?

IVANTCHIK, Askold I (1999). "UNE LÉGENDE SUR L'ORIGINE DES SCYTHES (HDT. IV, 5-7) ET LE PROBLÈME DES SOURCES DU 'SCYTHICOS LOGOS' D'HÉRODOTE". Revue Des Études Grecques. 112 (1): 141–92. JSTOR 44260011. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: I have briefly skimmed it, but haven't had the time to read it in depth yet. Additionally, since you seem to be interested with Scythian history, we have been having a debate on whether or not to merge Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians on Talk:Scythians, and you are welcome to add your input to the discussion. Antiquistik (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Material regarding Thracian religion and a figure named "Perkos"/"Perkon"

Hello, Antiquistik. I was fixing the Thracians#Religion section and noticed that it mentions that this "Perkon" was "The supreme Balkan thunder god". I was feeling a bit skeptical and decides to resort to your sources, since you were the one that updated the Thracian religion article. In any of your sources (Fol, Marazov, Ustinova), do they mention this Perkon/Perkos? Non-Thracology sources link it to reconstructed PIE thunder god *Perkwunos, and the name appears in conjunction with the Hero(s)/Thracian horseman cult.

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Hello! The sources I used to expand the Thracian religion article do not mention Perkon/Perkos, but other works by Fol and Marazov that I do not currently have access to do mention this Thracian deity. Antiquistik (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be difficult to divulge Fol and Marazov's works where they cite Perkon/Perkos? I would like to see what information can be gleaned to articles Thracian#religion (section), Thracian Horseman and *Perkwunos. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Ancient Thrace (2000) by Fol, and Ancient Thrace: The Thracians, Art, the King and Culture, Gods and Heroes, Faith in Immortality, Conclusion (2005) by Marazov, cover Perkos. But, as I mentioned, they are not presently accessible to me. Hopefully you might be able to access them somehow. Antiquistik (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Buli (tribe)

Hello, Antiquistik. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Buli (tribe), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

New book (2022) on "The Scythian Empire"

Hello, Antiquistik. Have you seen this recent book on the Scythian peoples by Christopher Beckwith? It is available via WikipediaLibrary.

• Beckwith, Christopher I. (2022). The Scythian Empire: Central Eurasia and the Birth of the Classical Age from Persia to China. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9780691240541.

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: I have, and I do not recommend using it as a source. Christopher Beckwith often makes outlandish claims concerning the topics he covers which are at odds with most peer reviewed scholarship regarding those. Antiquistik (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qedarites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piscataway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ʿAṯtar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dedan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Uncritical reliance on Lipiński alone and other issues

The Mariote deity Lipiński presents as an early attestation of Ashtart probably is entirely separate, see the recent reassesment from a variety of authors (and early objections from Manfred Krebernik going back to 1987...) via Talk:Ishtarat.

I also think the label "Great Goddess" feels more at home in a new age pamphlet or in a 19th century orientalist diatribe than in a modern encyclopedic article. In which way is Ashtart a "Great Goddess", anyway, when Belet-Ekalli, Annunitum or Deritum are much better attested in Mari, Anat and Shapash in Ugarit, Baalat Gebal in Byblos, etc.? How do you even understand this term?

There is also no agreement that there was an "Ashtart of the sea" in Emar. That's actually slowly becoming a minority position, and Daniel E. Fleming in particular is critical of the proposal - and he is much more familiar with the Emar corpus than Lipiński. M. S. Smith gives multiple possible explanations: a type of shrine (abû), a month (Abî), or to the plural of the word “father”; I'm pretty sure Fleming's list was similar. And all of these do seem to have more support than the rather esoteric notion that we are dealing with a shortened form of logographic A.AB.BA - which, to my knowledge, wasn't even used to refer to actual sea in Emar, the related theonym is written phonetically (and reflects the West Semitic form, not the Akkadian one).

Before further Ashtart ventures I would recommend consulting M. S. Smith's recent article or A. M. Wilson-Wright's dissertation. Lipiński might be a great linguist, but he's hardly a great historian of religion, as pointed out for example by Maciej M. Münnich in his Resheph monograph (and even in the linguistics department he leaves a lot to be desired, judging from his infamous KTU 1.96 translation where every noun turns into "penis"... T. Lewis brings this up in this article). Truth to be told, I think you generally need to explore authors other than Lipiński, because virtually all your edits in ANE articles seem to largely depend on his work. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: I am aware of the issues with Lipiński's scholarship, but I think some of his more reliable texts can be used as a rough "backbone" of sorts to rewrite several articles which need overhauling, and to which corrections can be added and from which the erroneous information removed. I definitely do plan to add information from more authors to the articles I have used so far, and to also correct the section on the Mariote goddess.

As for the term "Great Goddess," I have used it so far because that's a term which many of my present sources use, although I definitely do agree with you that it is indeed problematic, and I will remove it during my next corrections to the page. Antiquistik (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, sorry if the message sounded hostile.

I am currently making my way through Ugarit-related articles (going to work on Yam today or tomorrow) so I can help with sources or even with the rewrite. Most of what I have focuses on Ebla, Emar, Ugarit and Egypt though, while the sections which need the most work would probably be the Phoenician and Bible ones. And there's an entire section that honestly probably should just be removed (there is no need for a single non-specialist's Crete fantasies to be covered on wikipedia at all imo).

Do you maybe know some serviceable image to use in the infobox, btw? The current one, despite being there for ages, is completely unrelated Nanaya, and originates well to the east of any area relevant to the article directly. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: Of course! Sources are more than welcome!

Unfortunately, I don't know of any image that can be used to replace the one currently used in the infobox. I will have to search for possible replacements. Antiquistik (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: I have replaced the image used in the infobox with a known depiction of ʿAštart. I have also completed adding the material from Lipiński, and I will start adding corrections and re-add in a more coherent form the material that was already present on the page before I started editing it tomorrow. Antiquistik (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good call on the image. The correct identification is already cited in the Nanaya article, so I think the matter is settled for good now.

Before I'll forget: an open access monograph I'd recommend that can help a lot is Izak Cornelius' The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE. It... would make for a much better starting point than Lipiński, frankly, but that's beside the point now. I already listed the other major recent publications worth consulting earlier.

I personally do not fully grasp the idea behind first filling the article with "Great Goddesses", fertility, "sacred prostitution" and "sacred marriages" but I do admire the effort you put into making sure every name variant has the spelling in corresponding script provided

I will single out a few sections which seem like huge problems to me, other than the ad nauseam repetition of vintage shoddy scholarship on these matters: the article is very unbalanced right now, with the Mariote, Ugaritic, Emariote and Egyptian material hardly discussed; scholarship on Baalat Gebal moved since 1995, Lipiński's assessment is woefully outdated and there's no real reason to think she is anything but a fully distinct figure named, well, Baalat Gebal, but then he's the guy who thought Allani is Shuwala because he genuinely couldn't grasp two separate deities could be associated with the underworld; I won't even comment on the Tanit thing, that one is even more dubious and I personally think just straight up calling her a "hypostasis" borders on malpractice. The idea of interchangeability of goddesses gleefully promoted by authors like Lipiński or, earlier on, Albright has been criticized by Jo Ann Hackett in the 1980s already, Wilson-Wright basically goes in the polar opposite direction and argues it's not even possible to really speak of a single Ashtart, but obviously we cannot go -that- far on wikipedia and split the material. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: Thanks for the input. I will be making corrections to the article based on it and the source you have provided beginning tomorrow. I would gladly welcome any further sources you can suggest to correct the content of the article.

Additionally, Lipiński seems to identify Baʿl Ḥamon with Dagon on quite dubious terms. Do you know of any sources which criticise this identification? Antiquistik (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it's a theory with any serious support. Feliu in his Dagan monograph, which is basically mandatory reading for virtually anything involving this god, doesn't even allude to it, neither does Archi in a shorter study dealing with Dagan's relations with other deities.

The newest discussion of BH's identity I can think of comes from S. Allen's The Splintered Divine; he uses the romanization "Baal-Ḥamān", relevant discussion is on pp. 230-233; 242-243; 248. Long story short, seems multiple authors favor identification with El (Allen basically presents it as the consensus view on p. 248), and even though Lipiński is brought up, his proposal isn't even discussed. Seems like a solid study for some Tanit information as well, definitely preferable to baffling "hypostasis of Ashtart" claims (as a side note, I really like Wiggins' and Cornelius' criticism of the obsession with making every 1st mil goddess a manifestation of one the "3A" Ugaritic ones, ie. Ashtart, Anat, Athirat - just a baffling convention which really should be abandoned, but I digress).

On geographical grounds, Lipiński's proposal makes 0 sense because Dagan is already rare in Ugarit, let alone in Iron Age Phoenicia, and he was chiefly worshiped basically closer to modern Syria-Iraq border than Amanus range or the coast. As I said, I personally do not see much value in his study of virtually any deity. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: I have added the material from Smith's article to the Wikipedia entry on Astarte. However Smith maintains that the Mariote ʿAṯtarat was the same goddess as ʿAṯtart, and that the 1st millennium ʿAštart was a fertility goddess in some capacity (Budin, who wholly rejects the existence of "sacred prostitution" altogether, still maintains that she was connected to fertility in some capacity), and while I haven't been able to access the source that Smith refers to when mentioning the Ugaritic royal entry ritual, the excerpts I have been able to read maintain that it was some sort of sacred marriage ritual between the king and the goddess.

Therefore, I haven't removed any of the material mentioning those from the page, and I will need more sources disputing these positions to do so. Antiquistik (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You got multiple sources already. If you do not know where to look for sources maybe it wasn't a good idea to edit it in the first place. You won't write a good article about history of religion if you won't START with a survey of as much material, preferably recent, as possible.

Wilson-Wright's already linked dissertation alone is a solid 200+ pages and right in the beginning (p. 15) has a rather direct statement: "Athtart was not a fertility goddess, but rather a goddess of war, apotropaic magic, and kingship". Additional source given is this article. Note through the entire 290 pages pdf the word "fertility" comes up mere 15 times and mostly not in relation to Ashtart. "Sacred marriage" and related terms does not come up at all (the discussion of the nature of the relation between Ashtart and the king at Ugarit starts on p. 166), and it doesn't come up in Pardee's Ritual and Cult at Ugarit from 2002 either (quick search for "marriage" indicates all he mentions is a marriage between the male Attar Šadî and a goddess in a ritual, the well known historiola[?] about Horon's presumed marriage proposal; "hieros gamos" only brings up a brief consideration of RS 24.291 being such a text, but he also states it might just be an "entry" rite). Should also be noted here that the "fertility" label was already criticized by Jo Ann Hackett in the 1980s, see here. Pardee, writing in 2002, concluded that "the fertility cult so dear to the heart of older generations of Hebrew and Ugaritic scholars shows up clearly in neither corpus" and at no point attributes a connection to fertility to Ashtart (he points out that Baal was responsible for vegetation and Saggar possibly for flocks; in both cases what is meant by "fertility" is clarified). It's hardly recent.

All sources regarding the Ishtarat situation are already listed on relevant talk page, I am not going to repeat them here. Smith repeats Ayali-Darshan (whose article is pretty poor quality, she somehow assumed she can treat the Mesopotamian deified river ordeal, ie. Id(lurugu)/Narum, as somehow interchangeable with Yam despite river ordeal not even being attested in Ugarit, and Yam being attested under own name in Mari, but that's beside the point) who repeats Lambert; only Lambert actually consulted the primary sources. I am not sure if Smith's article even constitutes a voice in the debate, especially when he starts with a direct statement that Mari is not really going to be discussed in detail. I do think it would be a good idea to mention something like "authors such as so and so follow this reading and on this basis discuss the deity as a form of Ashtart" etc., though.

A minor issue: most of your footnotes do not give specific page numbers. In an article of this size this seems rather weird. "This very specific epithet is mentioned somewhere within these 60 pages" is not very rigorous or informative. In the case of Smith's article you just didn't bother with page numbers at all. Why be pedantic about strange linguistic details (no offense but who regularly spells it "ʾUgaritu", rather than Ugarit? This is a repeat of the problem that was already discussed on the talk page, where multiple people criticized your approach to "correct" forms wrt the renaming proposal) when you won't even bother with sourcing precisely? Why be pedantic about that while you will simplify what Smith dedicates multiple pages to in order to instead declare there is a single clear way to interpret KTU 1.114? I do not fully grasp your priorities. Maybe you should consider switching to wiktionary if you are mostly passionate about the spellings of names. This is a genuine suggestion, not hostility or mockery. I'm sorry but so far I just do not think you were the right person to handle this article, or the article of any ANE goddess for that matter. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Further problems:

1. Your insistence on not using the most common spelling of the names at this point borders on parody. "god 𓇓𓏲𓏏𓄡𓃩𓀭 (Sūtaẖ)"? "Knmt Oasis"? "Ꜣūsat"? Seriously? These are the most common English names, ie. what we are supposed to use on the wiki? Look at the articles of Egyptian deities which are by far in the best shape, like Isis, and contrast that with your approach. No offense but at this point it feels like purposely making articles impenetrable to the average reader to show off. No actual experts do this! There is no need to prove yourself this way.

2. You barely discuss historical context of any facts whatsoever, major texts are summarized in two sentences or less. I do not want to be rude but maybe spending more time on that would be preferable to making sure the article speaks of "𓇓𓏲𓏏𓄡𓃩𓀭" and not Set, and to transliterating random sections of the Baal Cycle (with little, if any, information about the work itself or the role Ashtart plays in it, provided...). Astarte Papyrus (not a translation of any specific northern text!) or Phoenician History, both of which have plentiful publications dedicated to them, also surely warrant more space. Do you not feel the need to actually experience the texts? You certainly added a lot of volume to the article, but very little actual content. When information is provided, it is chaotic and arranged in virtually no coherent manner. Individual epithets get sections! Relations to singular deities get sections"! "Cult" is somehow separate specifically from royal devotion! Epithet indicating a connection to Baal is separate from discussing relation to Baal, somehow.

3. Qedshet is not Ashtart, or at least the number of authors who maintain that she is remains pretty low nowadays. Arguments on the contrary have been advanced for example by Chistiane Zivie-Coche (see ex. here) and Izak Cornelius (see here); other identifications of Q. as a preexisting goddess were also met with criticism, ex. from Steve A. Wiggins. Please stop treating goddesses as interchangeable (I really urge you to read either Hackett's linked article or Westenholz's & Asher-Greve's Goddesses in Context). Please read multiple sources before adding statements on such matters to articles. Especially when the sources are an author whose scholarship leaves much to be desired (ie. Lipiński) and a classicist (Budin, while definitely accomplished in pushing back against the notion of "sacred prostitution", is primarily an expert when it comes to Ancient Greece, not Egypt. Actually, judging from her academia.edu currently she is trying to become an "expert" in complaining about nonbinary people, which seems like a considerable decline compared to her earlier articles, but that's irrelevant to the argument). Once again, doing a survey of material BEFORE writing the article was needed. Same goes for the Baalat Gebal paragraph which I already mentioned, so this is clearly a recurring problem.

4. Lucian of Samosata's Selene identification cannot be repeated uncritically due to lack of attestations. See Bloch-Smith contribution here.

5. Are separate sections on Amon, Moab, Edom needed when you just repeat multiple times she is not attested there?

As it stands, I do not really want to go over this anymore. Sorry. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: Would you know where can I access Mission archéologique de Mari. III. Les temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza online? The digital library of the Stony Brook University appears to have one copy, but it refuses to load for me. Antiquistik (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Scythian religion. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tabiti (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Tabiti may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: The content on the website https://slife.org/scythian-religion/ is itself a mirror of the Wikipedia article Scythian religion, all of whose contents were written by myself. None of this material is copyrighted. Antiquistik (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the advice that S Philbrick gave you earlier today, above this on your talk page and action accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: @Curb Safe Charmer: I have added the proper attribution for the copied material. Antiquistik (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks-you S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Antiquistik! 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Baffling additions to the Anat article

"Someone 60 years ago thought a myth is similar" is not "legacy", and to put it very lightly given that Anat is not attested east of Mari (with the bulk of attestations coming from Ugarit, Mari and Suhum) should make one pause multiple times before making weird claims about her. Please think multiple times before adding this sort of fringe vintage ideas to articles, and correctly label them as "Comparative religion" or something to that effect and not "Legacy", which misleads the average reader into believing there is a tangible, agreed upon connection. India is not exactly known for Amorite presence.

Also, please check multiple sources before calling any deities "consorts". The article already has a detailed section on this matter. 1960s were a while ago, and Ugaritic studies didn't even reach their current shape before 1980s/90s, feels like you should familiarize yourself with the field before making broad statements because of a vintage source. The article also consistently spells the name as "Anat" as per Wikipedia:Common names. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tabiti (March 3)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tabiti 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 may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, User:Antiquistik. This has been a very frustrating example of AfC's total bureaucratisation. I think you'd be fine to just copy-paste the draft to Tabiti (with a note in the edit description saying that is what you'd done). Furius (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Furius: I would need to be able to edit Tabiti for that, and I do not have these permissions. Antiquistik (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugaritic alphabet

Your edit had both negative and positive aspects. Maybe it should be done incrementally, so that the various parts of the change could be discussed separately, instead of as one big lump. AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Could you explain what negative aspects did my edits have? Antiquistik (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

To start with, you replaced the well-known letter shapes of the Hebrew alphabet # B+ G+ D+ etc. with letter shapes which are far less widely-known, for a reason that's unclear to me (not because the other shapes are contemporary with Ugaritic, because they're not)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: What I did was to replace the Hebrew script altogether with the Phoenician script because the latter script is more important for the history of the development of alphabetic writing systems. Antiquistik (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The way that the letter-shapes displayed in my browser, they were not early Phoenician (early Phoenician letter-shapes also have some degree of familiarity, though not as much as the standard "square" Hebrew alphabet), but appeared to be some later development of Phoenician, which relatively few people beyond specialist professional epigraphers would readily recognize. In published corpora of inscriptions from the 1000 B.C. to 1 B.C. period in various Northwest Semitic alphabets, the various inscriptions have often been printed in the standard "square" Hebrew alphabet, even if the inscriptions are in Phoenician, Aramaic etc. scripts. I see no reason why we should be more purist than 20th-century scholars were, and in addition, the standard Hebrew letter-shapes are more widely recognizable, and a lot more is known about the pronunciation of Hebrew than the pronunciation of Phoenician... AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I used the letters available from the current Unicode block, but without the {script|Phnx|-}} template.

I would agree on adding both the Hebrew and Phoenician alphabets if necessary, given the importance of the Phoenician script in the development of the alphabet and most Wikipedia articles on ancient scripts including comparisons with Phoenician. But I disagree with using only Hebrew or removing Phoenician because the 20th century scholars' practise of transliterating into Hebrew is tends to not be used anymore, and contemporary scholarship uses either the actual scripts' letters themselves or Romanisations.

Additionally, while the full phonology of Phoenician is still uncertain, the phonetic values of the attested Phoenician letters are known. Antiquistik (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

--- Sorry for delay, but I partially misremembered. Many of the Aramaic letter shapes would not be widely recognizable, and are not suitable for replacing standard well-known Hebrew letter shapes in this context, in my opinion... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Well, using the template -‎ might be an option, although the unicode block for Aramaic and the template both render only Imperial Aramaic, but not the older variants of the script. Antiquistik (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Many of the letter shapes in File:Aramaic-in-revision-of-Ugaritic-article.png would simply not be recognizable to vvery many people other than specialist professional epigraphers. By contrast, classic Hebrew letter shapes are widely known. AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: is there any way to resolve this issue that would also include maintaining Aramaic as a compared script in the article? Because Aramaic is also ancestral to a large number of scripts, so I would lean on preferring to keep it on the page. 17:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Antiquistik (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't technically reply, but I've mostly said what I had to say, and this discussion format really isn't working for me, since by the time I reply, it's almost a week after I made my last comment, and I forget things and make mistakes. I knew as soon as I saw the letter "beith" in the Aramaic column that such letter shapes are quite unsuitable as a replacement for "square" Hebrew letter shapes (which are far more widely known). Aramaic is certainly ancestral to many alphabets, but the Aramaic language isn't so closely related to Ugaritic, and many of the particular letter shapes in the image are known to few besides professional epigraphers. AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Cimmerians

Hi Antiquistik. You add a reference for "Sulimirski 1985" to Cimmerians, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Sources section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for letting me know. I have added the citation to the sources section. Antiquistik (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What's going on with Ivantchik 1993? There's only one cite with that author/year combination, but you've added disambiguation to some of the references. As there is no "Ivantchik 1993a" this is causing the same error. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: That was an error. I have corrected it. Antiquistik (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scythian languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spargapeithes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Scythian genealogical myth - parallels in Germanic tradition?

Hello, Antiquistik. After reading your recent additions to the Scythian genealogical myth, I've found an article by Udo Strutynski about possible parallels in stories collected from Germanic tradition - a comparison Strutynski makes in the article.

• Strutynski, Udo (1984). "The Survival of Indo-European Mythology in Germanic Legendry: Toward an Interdisciplinary Nexus". The Journal of American Folklore. 97 (383): 47–56. doi:10.2307/540395. Accessed 7 May 2023. [page 47ff is where the relevant section begins]

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Thanks! I will add the information from this article to the page soon. Antiquistik (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

More articles about Scythian iconography

Hello again, Antiquistik. Here are two more articles with Scythian artwork:

1. * Shelekhan, Aleksandr; Lifantii, Oksana V. (2022). "Swords and swordsmen in Greco-Scythian Art". Peuce (Serie Nouă) - Studii şi cercetari de istorie şi arheologie. 20: 39–72.

Available through Wikipedia Library. Has some nice pictures of Scythian art and offers an interpretation on the sword and battle motifs in their art.

2. Schiltz Véronique. "Le Roi scythe. Iconographie du pouvoir scythe au IVe s. avant J.-C.." In: Les princes de la protohistoire et l’émergence de l’État. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre Jean Bérard et l'Ecole française de Rome Naples, 27-29 octobre 1994. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1999. pp. 115-123. (Publications de l'École française de Rome, 252) www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1999_act_252_1_6010

More on the Scythian iconography. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Künzl, Ernst. "Life on Earth and Death from Heaven: The Golden Pectoral of the Scythian King from the Tolstaya Mogila (Ukraine)". In: The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016, pp. 317-336. doi:10.1515/9781474417105-016

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Thanks again! I will add this information to the pages too soon. Antiquistik (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tabiti

Hello, Antiquistik. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tabiti, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warpalawas II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkadian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Size of Scythians

Hi Antiquistik. Wikipedia considers that a page can reach a size of about 200k maximum, for standard readability. The current page is 450k. Some information needs to be summarized or branched out in a structured manner. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @पाटलिपुत्र:. I understand this and I will be working on trimming the page and summarising what can be summarised in the coming days. Antiquistik (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Phoenicia

You are invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia. Please accept this invitation from a member of the project. I can't wait for us to work together! ~~~~

Let's go!

I don't know how I missed your work for so long. I am writing especially to thank you for your work on Astarte. This is a major effort and I think you should consider bringing the article forward and submit at least a GA nomination, better yet FA. Please consider joining the WikiProject. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade: Thanks for the invitation, I am glad to join this WikiProject. I will submit the article, but I will first need to do some corrections on the page per @HaniwaEnthusiast:'s critique of my edits. Antiquistik (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik I'd be pleased to assist too. The accuracy of the citations and referencing could be enhanced as citing a page range from Lipinski, for instance, may elicit reviewer reservations. Do you happen to have an accessible copy of Lipinski's work? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	for your extremely good work in Cuneiform. I guess it demanded HOURS of hard and Sisyphean work, but the result is great and I personally find it very helpful from time to time. Thanks :) פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Chemosh

Hi, Antiquistik. You made this edit, [8]. Where exactly does 𐤔𐤒𐤑𐤊𐤌𐤔‎ appear in those sources? SamEV (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamEV: Is is found on page 357 of Lipiński 2006. Antiquistik (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the translation from Lipiński. SamEV (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Akkadian CV and VC syllabic glyphs

Template:Akkadian CV and VC syllabic glyphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Akkadian VCV syllabic glyphs

Template:Akkadian VCV syllabic glyphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Akkadian V and VV glyphs

Template:Akkadian V and VV glyphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Undefined sfn references

Hi, in Cybistra, Tyana, and Tabal (region) you have introduced sfn references to "Aro 2013". Unfortunately this source is not defined in any of the articles, meaning that nobody can look it up and that the articles are placed in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Antiquistik, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just been reading through your most recent creations, they're super interesting, thanks for your contributions – Joe (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Oh wow! Thank you for everything! Antiquistik (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:HittiteAndNeoAssyrianFontDisplay.png

Thanks for uploading File:HittiteAndNeoAssyrianFontDisplay.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tabal (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaška.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Lydian deities and possible Greek influence

Hello, Antiquistik. I'd like to congratulate you for the Lydian religion article. However, on searching for more information on the Lydian deities, I've found sources from Hellenists, mythographers et alli that state that deities Lefs, Lametru and Artimis, for example, are actually loans from the Greek pantheon into Lydian religion. How does this information compare with Oreshko and others that defend an indigenous/independent character in regards to such deities? KHR FolkMyth (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Oreshko's argument is that the different roles and functions of Lefs, Lamẽtrus and Artimus in the Lydian religion and the difference between their names and their Greek equivalents suggests that they cannot have been recent borrowings from the Greeks and that they must therefore be older.

Given how early Lydia is still very scarcely documented, it's likely that this will keep on being debated in academic circles for a long time.

However, Oreshko's own argument does appear to be more accurate, especially when you consider how Greek /d/ tended to be rendered as /t/ in later sources (e.g. Greek Alexandros to Lydian Aliksãntru). He also has a more extensive paper on Lydian language and religion ('Gods of the Lydians and the Question of Lydian Ethnocultural Identity,' in From Sardis to Gordion: Aspects of Culture and Society in pre-Hellenistic Lydia and Phrygia) that will be published this year, so hopefully we will be able to see evaluations of his arguments very soon as well. Antiquistik (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Aztec Mythology and Sexuality, Suggestions for improvements

First of all, thank you for your contributions in the Homosexuality in Mexico article, specially for adding better sources and some extra information.

I noticed that the article doesn't have information about Mexica's mythical story anymore, while I first thought you had accidentally deleted it, I realized the only source was unreliable thanks to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (sorry for not asking you first).

I sadly don't have the time to do research nor the motivation (and I also have a hard time finding reliable sources), so I wanted to ask if you could please add more information if you have time/want to.

Thanks in advance. Ang720 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ang720: I will see if I can find any information on the subject and add it to the page. Thanks for letting me know. Antiquistik (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Article about Persian-language names attested in Sardes

Hello, Antiquistik. I've found an article from the "Bulletin de l'École de Belgie" about some Persian-language names attested in inscriptions from Sardes. It may be useful for more information about Persian/Iranian expansion into Anatolia.

https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/babelao/article/view/19933

KHR FolkMyth (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth: Thanks for informing me. I'll see if I can use this information when I get to working on the Achaemenid period. Antiquistik (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)