Hello, I asked for a reference in the Graeco-buddhism article, but you just undid my change. I searched in the Digha Nikaya for such thing and never found it. Please say where in the Digha Nikaya the Buddha has warned against his representation after his death, or at least refer to who said so.
Hi again,
Just wondering if you could tell me where you found the above-linked image of Yokosuka? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Pinkville15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG! I totally agree with you that Anxi in Chinese usually refers to Arsacid "Parthia." However, we have no evidence of Kujula invading "Parthia Proper" but lots of evidence of him conquering much if not all of "Indo-Parthia," and it is descriptions of the conquest of these territories which we find detailed in the Hou Hanshu. These are the reasons why I have interpreted Anxi in this passage as "Indo-Parthia." I will, therefore, change it back to Indo-Parthia. However, if you are still not happy about this please leave a note on my Discussion page and we can talk about it further. John Hill05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It is a good compromise you have suggested on my Discussion page - thanks. I will add in brackets after Anxi: (commonly used for Parthia but thought to indicate Indo-Parthia here). Cheers John Hill06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the article getting featured! There are few loose ends I think need tying up, see the talk page, but great job!--Monocrat02:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GBAMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell(talk) (random)21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While thinking of people who might be interested in or have suggestions with regard to this idea, I recalled the excellent work you did on indo-Greek Kingdom. I'd encourage you to take a look at the idea, see if it interests you, and make any suggestions you might have. Thanks, --RobthTalk03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear PHG: I am writing to you as I have noticed that you have written a number of excellent, well-researched articles on early Indian history, Buddhism, the Kushans, etc., and have also made significant contributions to the article on Kanishka.
I would like to ask for advice about what to do regarding what I believe is happening on the Kanishka page. It seems a couple of Jat writers are promoting a very Jat-oriented view of Indian history and have been making (what I believe are unsupportable) claims that many famous Indian kings (including Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok Maurya, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II, Kanishka, Yasodharman, and Harshavardhana, among others) were all Jats.
I have had several run-ins with a couple of them on the Jat Discussion page but have found it pointless trying to argue with them as they continually make references to books written by Jat "historians" quoting their statements as "facts" that I am unable to verify, and challenging me to "prove" that such and such a king was NOT a Jat. Apparently, if I am unable to do this I am expected to just accept their Jat-oriented "historical traditions" as established "fact."
I have tried to point out (see my notes in the Jat Discussion page archives) the differences between traditions and facts but logic seems to have little effect on these people who, in my view, approach "history" from the standpoint of "true believers."
They have added a whole section called "The clan of Kanishka" to the article on Kanishka and I (at least) believe it makes a mockery of the careful reconstruction of the history of Kanishka and the Kushans which has been assembled over the last couple of centuries by a wide range of distinguished scholars.
Sections like this, with questionable traditions and beliefs presented as factual is one of the main things that brings criticism of the Wikipedia (and, indeed, modern historical scholarship in general) into disrepute and gives it a reputation as an untrustworthy source.
I believe this matter should probably be put to some form of arbitration with neutral editors. I have been trying to discover how to initiate such a process but have been unable to do so.
I would be most grateful indeed if you could please advise me what I should do next.
Dear PHG:: I have just cleaned up the Kanishka page a bit and removed the section on Kanishka's clan which contained the claims about him being a Jat. So, please don't bother answering this - I will let things sit for a while and see what happens. If there is more controversy I will let you know. Cheers, John Hill04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the greeting. I hope you didn't find my sabbatical to be too disconcerting, as we've certainly had quite the repartee over the past year. In any event, seems like you've been fairly productive. As you know, I fully respect the efforts to maintain and augment valid material, but as I've affirmed numerous times, I do take issue with rather far-fetched and one-sided reconstructions. I was a little disappointed to see the consensus map, on which you and Vastu worked so hard to engender, disappear. It didn't even appear as if there was some discussion preceding it. As we both know, a greek invasion of the gangetic is far from gospel and has been subject to intense debate. In fact, one of the main authorities on the Indo greeks, A.K. Narain, has actually noted that Menander may simply have joined the kings of Panchala and Mathura on a raid down the Ganga. And the hathigumpha inscription itself remains an uncertain source as Kharavela's reign has been linked to centuries before and after the start of the common era and the word dimi has also been read as vima (as in vima kadphises, who I know you are familiar with). As for the Yuga Purana and MBH citations, those interpretations by Michener have been contested by other authorities such as Kak et al. I have not problem positing those theories, alongside others, but I do believe they need to be qualified. I am not alone in this opinion, and have respected our previous accords, as seen with the Ashoka debate.
As always, I respect your time and work on these pages and am willing to cooperate with you on compromise phrasing if you are so inclined.
Working on them. I will let you know when they come in through the mail. It definitely is a very interesting aspect of this period. As per your question, Kharavela remains a rather enigmatic figure ever since they found the hathigumpha inscription 2 centuries ago. He hasn't been concretely fixed to an era. The earliest date we have for him, I believe, is 125 BCE. This of course precludes the possibility of a conflict with Demetrius of Bactria, leaving one of his namesakes as a possibility. Accordingly, there are 3-4 Satakarnis, making a Satavahana reference point difficult. As I understand it, dates for his reign range from the late 2nd century BCE to the mid 2nd century CE. Bearing in mind our extended discussions on the term "yavana", you can recognize the tenuous nature of the hathigumpha inscription's status as evidence of greek campaigns to the east. Kushan campaigns, and indeed conquests, are well-established and well-attested, hence the increased likelihood of such a case. Nevertheless, as we both know, there is a great deal of discussion surrounding this (ranging from carbon-dating to script dating). It will be interesting to see if any progress on this topic is made in the Ivory Tower.
Thanks for uploading Image:MauryanMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, PHG, you will recall I've worked with you on Hasekura Tsunenaga, and Image:AsokaKandahar.jpg. Recently I was working on starting a more complete article on Hasekura for the Latin wikipedia (see Faxecura Rocuyemon), and the question of Mancio Ito came up. Essentiall I have been trying to find a good citation for what his name was in Latin: for Martinão Hara I found one souce that calls him Fara Martinus, so Mancio would presumably have been Ito Mancius or Itus Mancius, but until I find a source I can only speculate.
Interesting though this question is (at least to me), that is not why I am writing to you. Here's my real purpose: in my search for sources, I ended up downloading a half-dozen articles on the subject of the Tensho Mission. These articles contain a lot of information that would make valuable additions to Mancio Ito. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to devote to that article. So I was wondering if you would be interested in reading these articles yourself, and perhaps taking up the job of distilling them for wikipedia? If so, contact me by email. Thanks, Iustinus18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:SungaMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bhagabhadra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Bhagabhadra. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo756516:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:KairyuHideaway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Ta-Yuan.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The problem is that a lot of the articles require a subscription. Besides, as I didn't write down all the URLs, it woudl be a lot easier to email you the stuff, if you are amenable. As I said above, if you are OK with that you can reach me through the mail-to link. Otherwise, well... I guess we'll ahve to do it the long way. --Iustinus07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the edit [1] having Greek and Aramaic repeatedly removed. I have opened discussion in talk page with the user in question and I ask you to contribute. I would like to improve this article so that it achieves featured status so all pertinent information should be there. Rumpelstiltskin22306:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? Before you bandy about such charges, why don't you do some real research on the actual article content. It's not even the same IP address. If some other fellow makes a change, what does it have to do with me? Why don't you spend less time on conspiracy theories, which you seem more interested in focusing on, and more time on doing real research. Indeed, your behavior is becoming increasingly unseemly. Put a sock in it.
Regards,
Devanampriya
Umm yeah, but I have no control over family members who were irritated by the map, aren't regular contributors, and made changes on their own with my internet connection. If that was my plan, PHG, sock puppeting would be going on as we speak and with greater frequency and impact. But it's not, and as you very well know, I've been using the same account for over a year, arguing the same old points, all while respecting the 3RR rule. So why don't you focus back on the issues, especially since you violate some of the very rules you argue for. i.e making changes on the article page instead of posting it on discussion first, which is what set this edit-war off in the first place.
You chided windy city dude for uploading his map directly, but did not consult other indo greek article editors when you put up your revised menander map directly onto the page.
So correct yourself instead of accusing others, and let's focus on the issues...
Devanampriya
PHG,
Can the manufactured outrage. While I realized that many of your abilities come into question due to the quality of your wikipedia scholarship, I didn't realize that reading comprehension was one of them. So let me put it in more simple terms for your benefit:
-More than one person uses that internet connection
-Unlike you who simply parrots opinions without digesting relevant facts from others, I discussed the edit war with family members to see what they thought.
-Concurring with me, one of them wanted to take a look, and then decided to make a one time change (hence the IP address and the comment marked only as RV) without signing on with my name.
-That occurred only once--hardly a case of sockpuppeting
"Why should I argue with a dishonest editor?". I ask myself the same question I attempt to discuss with you and reach a compromise that provides readers with a more accurate article. But your reliance on Tarn's poor interpretation and speculation smacks of bias like no other. There is a reason why yours is the only map that aggrandizes the indo-greeks' domains--there's no proof. There's no archaelogical evidence, no complete historiography, nothing. So why do you persist in prevaricating?
"See for a while how it feels"? To whom? That page is not your personal fiefdom to be ruled at your caprice. Moroever, you didn't even deign to get the opinion of others. You just went ahead and posted the map. Talk about hypocrisy. Other contributors have to kowtow to you and your biases while you change maps and violate agreements at your whim. That is the height of arrogance. This is meant to be an article that accurately displays history for the benefit of its readers, not a vanity page for your Indo-Greek fantasies.
You cry obsolescence but you use Tarn, whose work dates back to the 30s
You talk about proof but furnish none
You feign agreement, only to violate consensus when it is convenient
You accuse others of pov-pushing in order to couch your philhellenism
You accuse others of lying, when you are guilty of it in its vilest form
It is you who is dishonest and untrustworthy. What a shame for wikipedia...
Hi, I just saw the map you added to the Taxila page. Did you create the map yourself? If so, is it possible to change a label in it? It has Greek names for most cities and rivers; however, the mountain range labeled "Hindu-Kush," a term that wasn't used until the 13 century CE. Alexander's name for it was "Kaukasos Indikos" (latinzed later to Caucasus Indicus). Can it be changed? Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG, could you please give me a list of sources (i.e. the books used) for your Indo-Greek map, as it stands I do think your map should remain though I would just like to see the sources for my self to make sure, the arguements used against it seem very weak with an ulterior motive (i.e. out of xenophobia and anti-European sentiment) Plus I don't think Narain should be considered as a reliable source in comparison with Tarn (Eurocentric? Oh come on, Europeans are generally apathetic towards each other), Busagali as he is Indian himself during an anti-colonial, xenophobic and patriotic era. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giani g (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi again PHG, I think you should check with the Indo-Greek talk page, apparantly Narain is more generous than you have been, it's rather ironic considering "everyone" by which I mean Devan and his legion of xenophobes have tried to use Narain to decimate your articles. Hopefullly this "new discovery" by which I mean actual homework/research will help progress the article which has remained stagnent for quite a while since the protection has been added. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
While I dislike writing this message, for the vastity and quality of your contributions and the calm and politeness you generally display, in this occasion I feel you're behaviour has not fully conformed to WP:CIV. While I understand that Devanampriya can be extremely vexing this is not good reason for awnsering him in the same way. If you feel you can't cope anymore with Devanampriya's behaviour, then bring the issue before the WP:AN/I, or, better still, file a WP:RfC against him, but please, don't awnser that way. Have care, Aldux15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the article History of Buddhism no longer exemplifies the featured article standard on Wikipedia. I have mentioned some reasons on the article's talk page. I am contacting you because you were the original nominator of this article. I hope that you or someone else can make the necessary improvements to the article. If not, I will have to take it to WP:FAR. Feel free to contact me on my talk page for any further info. --Danaman506:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with the name of the Indo-Greek (yavana) king chased back to
Mathura by Khâravela, the great king of Kalinga and patron of Jainism
responsible for the Hâthîgumphâ inscription.
The distinguished Indian numismatist P.L.Gupta put it this way (_Kus.ân.a Coins
and History_, D.K.Printworld, 1994, p.184, note 5; reprint of a 1985 article):
"The Hâthîgumphâ inscription refers in line 8 to a yavana-râja, who fled to
Mathura when he realized the might of Khâravela. The name of the yavana-râja
bears three letters, of which the second letter may be fairly read as ma or mi.
It has been doubtfully restored as Dimita, meaning Demetrius the Indo-Greek
king. But as early as 1951, I thought it to be Vimaka, meaning Vima Kadphises.
The Patna Museum has a plaster cast of this inscription, which I personally
examined when I was there as Curator. It confirms my suggestion."
Perhaps a case of Dr.Gupta seeing what he wished to see.
The stated facts are that the name consists of three letters, of which the
second is mi or ma, and that the king is categorized as yavana, not koshana or
tukhara, nor saka or pahlava.
Although it is possible that a Kushan king might have been referred to as a
yavana and the personal name Vema/Vima expanded to Vimaka, both assumptions seem
to be forcing the evidence to fit the theory.
Moreover there are palaeographic problems with dating the Hâthîgumphâ text so
late as Wema Kadphises (reigned 90s-110s CE). Many Indic script specialists
seem to prefer the 1st century BC, or approximately contemporary with the Sanchi
inscriptions from the reign of the Satavahana Satakarni I.
The only serious Indo-Greek candidate reigned near the beginning of the 1st
century BC, some two centuries before Wema Kadphises, but well after the
collapse of Mauryan power and also beyond the floruit of their S'unga
successors. So an appropriate "window of opportunity" for the king from Orissa
to have taken Patna and advanced up the Ganges and Yamuna close to Mathura.
The Indo-Greeks did not pass beyond the E.Punjab into the upper Yamuna valley
until the reign of Menandros (ca.148-133 BC), and the last "Bactrian" king
Demetrios, Demetrios III, belongs inside or very shortly after the reign of
Menandros and certainly did not rule in Indic lands as he didn't strike any
bilingual coinage (his types and their barbarous imitations tie him closely to
the reign of Heliokles I and, like the latter, north of the Hindu Kush).
Among the kings who post-date Menandros and certainly or probably did rule along
the upper Yamuna and at Mathura (as evidenced by the Sonipat hoard) there is one
(and only one) whose name matches the requirements of the Hâthîgumphâ text, line
8.
The kharoshthi rendering of Amyntas' name on his bilingual coinage is:
Amitasa (A-mi-ta-sa) in the genitive, i.e. nominative Amita. That is, three
letters, with a middle mi too.
So no need to force anything to match what survives in the Orissan text very
well.
This needs to be considered when reconstructing the sequence and outline history
of the various successors of Menandros.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT SUBS BEING SUNK OFF HAWAII.THEN THEY WERE SUNK OFF
THE COAST OF JAPAN. CHECK DISCOVERY CHANNEL.COM ABOUT 400 CLASS SUBS AND OTHERS LIKE I-58. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRMAN (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have started a new discussion on the Ironclad warship Talk Page, called Neutrality needed, which has provoked some interesting responses. I hope that you will find it to be of interest.
PHG, my work on translating your map is almost done. Obviously finding Greco-Latin names for all the places listed would be impossible, but I have gotten a significant percentage. Is there any chance you would know of a locus classicus for any of the following placenames?
On a similar note, Kuninda Kingdom says that "[t]he Greek historian Ptolemy linked the origin of the Kuninda to the country where the rivers Ganges, Yamuna, and Beas originate", but I cannot find this passage. I put up a "specify" tag there and have had no luck. Since you have been doing such a good job of answering my "specify" requests, do you know this one?
Buddhist art has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Green45118:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PHG! I too have been an admirer of your many contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work and offering of your knowledge to the world community! I am still a novice on Wikipedia; for example, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to respond to your friendly message, nor am I sure how exactly to sign. I will slowly learn, and am of course very willing to be taught! As for the CoinIndia website, yes, indeed, I am the author of that, and I have always been willing for photographs from the site to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Do you serve as an adopter? All the best, CoinIndia11:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you pre-empted me, as I was going to author some material on the Paratarajas, perhaps linking to the existing entry for the Paradas. But I will bow to your seniority, and will look with interest at your article.
Re the photos, I looked at the GDFL license information, and I'm a little reluctant to simply post the photos in the public domain. Could you upload photos as you have done from my site in the past, with a link to the source and saying I have granted permission for use on Wikipedia but retain all other copyright? The GDFL license seems to make the photos fair game for anyone and for whatever use they want to put them. All the best,
CoinIndia21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I will write up something within the next few days. I am working on a new paper on the Paratarajas, so now is the time to do it. I want to ask your advice about something though. The "Paratarajas" are of course the rulers of the Parata people, so I am wondering if the entry should be under Paratas with perhaps a redirecting link from Paratarajas, since that has (I hope temporarily) become the name by which people refer to them. Further, in the Sanskrit sources, these people are known as the Paradas, so should the new information be there instead, with redirecting links from Paratas and Paratarajas? What do you think?
On a separate matter, since you are knowledgeable about Buddhist art, I have uploaded a photograph of an Avalokitesvara I took last summer at the British Museum. You can see it on my user page. What struck me about this statue is that the topknot has been shaped in such a way that it looks like the glans of a penis! I wonder if this is something that has perhaps been noted or seen elsewhere.
CoinIndia13:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hephthalites dynasties are certainly part of the "History of Greater Iran". Their headquarters were in what is now Afghanistan, and for over a century they became the main enemy of the Sassanids, sometimes even conquering Herat and going as far as Kerman. See the Encyclopaedia Iranica for more details (especially the articles written by Richard Nelson Frye). It was not until Khusraw Anushirvan that the Persians managed to destroy the Hephthalites, annexing most of their lands. Since the region of modern Afghanistan - by definition - is the eastern part of ancient Iran, then the template "History of Greater Iran" is very relevant. Not only this template, but also the template "History of India". Tājik11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi brother . at last you found your motherland and origin. Great work.
From Vishal Prakash Dudhane. Viswhal1976 ( Now blocked by Maratha vandalist ). See also Maratha and Maratha Clan System.
I remember long time ago when i watching T.V i saw a footeage that showed a local Java , Philipience or what , i dont remember , but it showed two gropes of several horse rider men haveing juvinial wepon in hands and throwing and fightin each other at a grownd and werein Maratha type hats. Also the horses , Bulls , Men and ther costume seem to me very familiar. I gotta a missing link their. Congrajulations brother. You have achived great work.
Please double check the references! The independent "Republic of Ezo" was set up on Meiji 1, December 15 (1/27/1869). Seven08:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parthian Shot. Would you have a reference for the "Crest of Gondophares according to Iranian sources". Do you know what are the Iranian sources in question? Regards PHG08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to update the 2003 figures or not? I will have a go if you don't, but then I wouldn't be sure of the accuracy. John Smith's12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly bullying you. I asked a question which I had already asked and you have not responded to. However I believe the 2003 figures are better to use. If you wish to discuss the matter further please use the Japan talk page. John Smith's14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prophecy in Daniel about Antiochus is an example of vaticinum ex eventu. Daniel is known, in the form we have it, to have been written pseudepigraphically in the 2nd century BC (the Aramaic middle chapters may be a century or so earlier) during Antiochus' persecution of the Jews 1, 2, 3 (also see Encarta, Albertz 1988, Dever 2001, the Jerusalem Bible's introduction, probably any introductory textbook to biblical studies); I took out the reference to the prophecy because 1) saying there is a mysterious prophecy that some believe refers to Antiochus is misleading; the prophecy does refer to him, because it was written during his reign retroactively, and 2) stating this in the article will generate an edit war with evangelicals, which is bad for the quality of the article. Therefore, since it is a peripheral detail, I believe it is best left out of the article; it is dealt with in the Book of Daniel article, which can be linked to the article on Antiochus.--Rob11702:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear PHG, While editing the article to reduce empty spaces between the sections the whole article (Satavahanas) got changed. You may revert the changes to earlier versions. I made a change: Dravidian to Proto-Dravidian.Kumarrao07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research because you are providing spin on an author's interpretations. When you discuss the successors to the Satavahanas, it is one thing to cite the author's quote and another to discuss what you believe the case to be--which is why I deleted it. Moreover, you have engaged in original research throughout your time on wikipedia from the indo greeks to the domains of the Indo Scythians (where is the published map or author whom you base this on) to the influence of names (Sikandar did gain circulation on the subcontinent because of Alexander's influence on India but because of Persianized Turks who conquered Northern India). Your errors and poor scholarship, ie the Huns and Pataliputra do not reflect well on the Encyclopedia.
Look, I have no desire to antagonize you nor to continue acrimonious debates, so please don't assume I am writing with a confrontational tone. As always, I have been seeking discussion and understanding in the aim of creating the most accurate entries possible. I have compromised before, i.e. the Mauryas and Seleucus' daughter. I would only hope you would do the same at some point. My edits are not designed to further some nationalist agenda (take a look at my edits: I have corrected claims of indian victories when they were defeats, I have cleaned up vandalism on Augustus' page, and have diluted baseless claims "satavahanas were the greatest power in Asia" etc,etc). However, Europeans classicists, as Frank W. Holt himself notes, have a habit of having it both ways and misrepresenting Indian history in a way that is overly favorable to foreigners, especially the greeks. Bear in mind that British Imperialists justified their rule of India by referencing previous invaders i.e. Indo Aryans, Greeks, etc. Many of your sources have been recognized to continue that tradition, hence the challenges. David Duke and Pim Fortyn can all by cited as verifiable sources, but that does not make them accurate or reliable. Hence, this is not vandalism.
However, weasel words do count as vandalism, and when you craft a one-sided narrative (i.e. greeks invading to protect buddhism rather than gain territory and wealth, the western satraps defending against the "rampaging" Satavahanas, etc) I am compelled to clean it up. Try to look at things from someone else's perspective; I seek to do that all the time. Perhaps you should do the same.
There you go again, PHG. Instead of absorbing the feedback and perspectives of others, you go on the attack. Neither you nor anyone above wikipedia is above the law:
The Indo Scythian map is not referenced. You are conducting original research in the application of Primary sources. No historian has ever advanced the claim of Scythian conquest of the entire Gangetic plain.
I didn't comment yet on your Sunga map because it is erroneous to begin with. Instead of trying to develop a competing map, which knowing your recalcitrance you would have deleted without explanation, I've been looking around to find a professional, referenced map that we can use with permission
Same with the Satavahana map (which you very recently posted, btw). I deleted lines stating that "the satavahanas were the most powerful force in asia", if the map is inaccurate and not properly reference, the same corollary applies. It seems to me that you are aware of your poor scholarship here and are merely seeking to counter-accuse.
You have applied original research on the Chandragupta Maurya page where you use quotes from a play to mention the "powerful composite army". Original research and weasel words. Where are the recognized historians who state those words and back up those claims. Just for the record, you don't count as one.
You routinely clog up articles with primary quotes, which negatively impact the readability of the article. I am not the only one who has noticed this. See the "Constantine" page. You then take these primary quotes and spin them to suit your preferred interpretation of events.
This links up with the rapson quote. That quote is clearly unnecessary as there was already a section discussing the break up of the Satavahana empire. You only relished this quote because of the possibility of an Indo-Greek mention. There is no need for that section let alone Rapson's interpretation of what the Matsya purana could imply. Morevoer, no historian posits the claim that indo greeks formed some sort of successor state to the satavahanas. As I've told you repeatedly, the term Yavana is often synonymous with foreigner in general. As for irrelevant quotes, my policy doesn't just target your hellenocentric edits. I have requested users to remove the section on Vikramaditya's conquests in the Hunas section.
This leads me again to the Yamuna article. Your drawn out sophistry on why Seleucus needs to be mentioned on the Yamuna page is an example of why I've been forced to delete your edits. Your very example "if someone reading about Alexander's campaigns reads that he didn't conquer the Yamuna, they will look it up and realize that the greek discovered it after Seleucus' campaigns" is eurocentric. These articles are to assume beginners of every background, nationality, and interest group, not just those who daydream about greek expansion. According to your logic, we should have a greek section for the China article due to the mention of the "seres" in western classical accounts. Moreover, that phrase is worded in such a way that users will think that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna, which is bunk.
You used poor/biased sources to defend a claim that no historian has advanced, which is that the huns sacked Guptan Pataliputra. Your source was replete with spelling mistakes and contentious claims.
You committed original research with your "Yavanajataka was the first indian treatise on astronomy" claim, your Greek influence on Indian coinage can be seen with the "Sikander Sani" claim on Delhi Sultanate coins. You are guilty of weasel words when you poison the narrative with such words as "rampaging Satavahanas".
If you make erroneous claims, poorly sourced entries, and one-sided narratives, I have every right, and indeed it is my duty, to delete them.
I truly hope that you will consider mending your ways and taking the advice of a fellow contributor. Sadly, your track record does not reflect well in that department.
Thanks very much for the Satow "presents", PHG. Which book were they from, and where and when published? Also, if you can find a photo/portrait of Joseph Henry Longford that really will be brilliant. I have searched high and low with no success. --Historian13:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I notice you have been updating the Ai Khanoum page and wish to thank you for your improvements. I thought that, because of your interest in the subject, you might be the person who could tell me about the so-called "foundation-stone" of Ai Khanoum. The only article I have been able to find on the subject is this one at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6462433.stm . Unfortunately, it does not say why "They" are so sure the city was founded by Alexander or that he actuall "touched" this foundation stone - not to mention other intriguing questions that arise. I wonder if you have any more information on it, or could steer me in the right direction, please? Feel free to email me directly if you wish at: wynhill@bigpond.com Many thanks once again. John Hill04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I have just been sent a link to a German language article in Spiegel online with a series of wonderful photos, including one of the stone phallus. I have also been sent the email address of the Swiss curator who has looked after the collection for the past few years and has been making the claim that Alexander founded the city. So, I have just written to him and will let you know what he replies. In the meantime - treat yourself by enjoying the photos at this site: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,472307,00.html
Cheers, John Hill10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is such a marvellous tool! I have already heard back from Paul Bucherer-Dietschi, Director of Swiss Afghanistan Institute and past-director of Afghanistan Museum in Exile who is, at the moment in Kabul!
He says, in his letter:
"So what I said exactely was: If Ai Khanoum was founded by Alexander, than this item
must have been handled by him self.
Unfortunately the object was found by illegal diggers and they thought to have
discovered an antique sex-shop. The stone slab with - most probably - an
inscription was either not discovered or it was to heavy to take it away. I have
great hopes, that one day it may be found agein.
The very best sources on Ai Khanoum are certainly the relevant DAFA publications by
Paul Bernard and others."
So, the articles by the BBC and Spiegl Online were, in fact, very misleading. Well, at least we know now what the situation was.
Hi! I noticed you put some of the comments about the findings from Ai Khanoum on the page. I have (temporarily - I hope) removed them because they were sent in a letter - not for publication I will write to him tomorrow or the next day and ask him if we can quote him in the article. Sorry - I should have made this plain when I wrote. I hate to bother him at the moment as I am sure he is very busy in Kabul - but I will write anyway and just say to him there is no rush but we would be very grateful if we could quote him in the Wikipedia article. I forgot also that these pages are not private and I should not have quoted his letter here - but it was done with good intentions. I hope he won't mind. Cheers, John Hill09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG. I noticed that on the image [[Image:KataNoiMoreWaves.JPG|100px]], it still uses the deprecated {{PD}} template for the public domain tag. In your edit summary when uploading, you stated it was a personal photograph, however, want to make sure whether it is OK to add {{PD-self}} to it instead. It hardly seems right for me to do this, as you, after all, are the original uploader of the image. Are you all right if I change it? Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen)23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a short note to tell you that I uploaded your Image:MenanderDikaiou.jpg to the commons. I have read several articles you have contributed in and seen several of your drawings and photos. I was much impressed. Thank you PHG.--FocalPoint19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... so as to explain why you are pushing the Roman history material so strongly [2] here? (And in the revert you made before I saved my edit at Yamuna. Reverting should be a rare and preferably last resort! Safer to slap a champion boxer in the face--well, smarter anyway.)
Besides being capable of being handled via a note (Hell, just imbed that stuff in a comment), all the article really needs is the translation names per the Greeks and Romans.
Being as that valley where they are putting in the SLY was an ancient caravan route, and even caravans from the Ganges would travel westward then northwards to skirt the Caspian to reach far Cathay, so the facts have long been established that there was lots of trade between India and Rome, Rome and China, and even Greece and China. Such has been rather well established beyond any doubt the past 30 years, so where is the impetus to push other peoples buttons with a quote that really doesn't fit? //FrankB02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minié rifle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Dayuan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
--Nydas(Talk)10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I salvaged what I could. I see nothing else that would be similar (i.e., not destroyed) in an encyclopedic article. If you can see something that has something other than sheer quantity (or cites; crap with a few ref tags is still crap) to recommend it, please do bring up specifics on the Talk page and we can see how to re-incorporate it. A.J.A.18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG. I've just reverted your edit to Ptolemaic Egypt. You must understand that moves made this way are absolutely unacceptable, because they completely destroy the history of the article. Also, you've created this way a great number of double redirects. I must also object to moving an important article as this one unilaterally, and under a title that is not free of dispute (for example, Ptolemaic Kingdom may have been preferred). I hope you don't take these notes bad: I've great admiration for your work, but here I must disagree with your actions. Ciao, Aldux14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aldux,
I may have been too bold on this one. I just thought it was pretty obvious that "Ptolemaic Egypt" was not an appropriate title for the subject (with such a title, the article should typically deal with life in Egypt under the Ptolemies: agriculture, life of the people etc...). The subject is clearly the Ptolemaic Empire (or, maybe Kingdom), which by the way, did not limit itself to Egypt (the Levant was also a part of Ptolemaic territories). Do you see what I mean? I'll bring the discussion to the Talk Page. Best regards. PHG16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be obtuse here, but I don't see the point of including the details of all the dynasties of the Magadha Empire. The idea seems to me is to give all the highlights of historical periods. The highlight of this period I am sure you will agree, is the Maurya Empire and it has adequate space. If we try to include all the dynasties the page will become too long. After all there are other empires then the Magadha empire, for eg Islamic Sultanates which are treated shortly. I am not sure that 4 entire paragraphs are required for Magadha Empire anyway. What do you think?--Shahab18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:1860Kanrinmaru delegation.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Thank you so very much for putting me on to the book - I had not heard of it previously. I am now working on the finishing touches to the final Appendix to the much revised and expanded version of my on-line book and hope to get it off to the publishers soon. I wish I had the new book on the Sakas here at the moment as I am busily dealing with all the Saka groups who invaded Bactria/Daxia along with the Tocharians, and trying to write up all the major theories about the origins of the Yuezhi and the Kushans. I will order a copy - but it is unlikely to be here in time for me to make use of it in this edition of my book.
I have been noticing some of your recent activities on the Wikipedia - particularly your trials over the Chandragupta article and fights over whether your maps should or shouldn't be allowed in the Wikipedia because someone thinks they represent "original research" (dirty words - those!!!). I just want to say I am very sympathetic with all your trials and tribulations as I have been having my own (boring and wearing) battles too - mainly on pages relating to the Jats - but also with lots of childish vandalism on many other pages. I, for one, am deeply grateful for all the fine work you have been doing - especially on Kushan-related articles (and I love the maps - they are great!). All my very best wishes, and thanks again for letting me know the good news. John Hill09:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PHG. I can see the breaking of an edit war between you and Devanampriya on the article Patna, and I thought I'd let you know that you just broke WP:3RR; regardless of who's right or wrong, if this continues I'll report you to WP:AN/3RR, so please calm down and talk this out with the other editors. Thank you. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Exairetos. Thanks for the heads-up, but I am still within 3 reverts for 24 hours. Got your point though. Best regards. PHG21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Kujula.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism at Satavahana article-- Vishal Prakash Dudhane -- Vishal1976
Hello. I'm here in the name of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, where User:Iustinus has posted an entry regarding a dispute you've been having on Talk:Kushan_Empire#Regarding_Map. I have posted a comment at the bottom of the talk page, and I think you should read it. In general, what I wanted to say with the whole comment is that User:Devanampriya behaved with incivility, the map is not original research, and that if he thinks the map is incorrect, then you two should try and achieve consensus by asking experts in the area to evaluate the map and see if it should be included. Please refrain from continuing this dispute and please accept my suggestions. Thank you. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:EuthydemusI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
Source added: From 1889 edition of _Principal Coins of the Ancients_Public Domain scans granted by ESnible from his site [3] (July 10th agreement by e-mail). Source:User PHG at english wikipedia
Thanks for fixing my very poor French translation. I didn't understand why they would want to dismantle walls... but, everyone needs a hobby. Now I understand. grenグレン04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, can you please change the template of this page so that I can help you to upload it on commons.Thank you very much. Chanueting14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AgatokleiaG.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot02:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On June 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kul-Oba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:ChastanaCoin.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your input in Amaravati article. The photographs of the stupa sculpture are beautiful. Is it possible for you to get a picture of the stupa model and include it? Kumarrao13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your work on Asian articles in general. Your contribution to wikipedia has been invaluable. Incidentally I was reading the Boshin War article the other day and thinking it is one of the best articles on history I have read on wikipedia -before I knew it was by you!!!. -superb. Keep it up I laud it!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PHG! Great work on the Ordos people page! I will try to add to it if I can find anything worthwhile you haven't already discovered. Do drop me an email sometime at wynhill@bigpond.com as I would like to contact you about sending you some papers, etc. Cheers and congratulations! John Hill07:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. LOL I've just been amusing myself browsing through articles on Category:Japanese cuisine the last few minutes -you should check it out. I am amazed at the coverage there is even categories full of devices and all sorts - its like an encyclopedia of its own on Japanese cuisine!!!! This project has grown into something quite astonishing hasn't it. The potential is beyong imagination! Keep up the great work! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure I have the whole text here - but I am extremely busy at the moment. Will get back to you with the translation just as soon as I can. Cheers, John Hill00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of work I've done on these articles is surely insignificant compared to yours. :) There are basically two motivations behind my recent edits.
My main concern to replace the lunate sigmas with normal sigmas, since it turns out the Unicode lunate sigma characters are not supposed to be used as part of regular text, and it's general practice to use modern letterforms when transcribing ancient texts. Since that's a change I made, I feel responsible for cleaning it up.
While I was at it, everything being in uppercase bugged me because 1) it really jumps out at you as a reader, when really the text is not that important compared to the rest of the article, and 2) I didn't see a really good reason for it, since Ancient Greek is routinely given in lowercase in modern publications even though it's anachronistic and the ancients only used uppercase. The ease of reading argument doesn't seem very strong to me, if anything lowercase keeps people from confusing letters like Η and Υ with their Latin lookalikes, and I find it easier to read as Greek for that reason (and because I'm used to seeing Greek in mostly lowercase); in any case the Greek text is only being given for extra information, there should always be a transcription or translation since we can't assume English readers know any Greek at all.
It seems to me like there's two separate issues here, use of text in the article proper and in coin legends on image captions. I definitely think something like a ruler's name in parentheses in the opening sentence should stay lowercase, since that's the overwhelming practice for other ancient Greek names (see e.g. Alexander the Great). I changed them both to be consistent, but if you feel strongly about the coin captions being uppercase I could change those back. You seem to be a coin enthusiast, do coin-oriented publications generally publish legends in all caps? It just seems distracting to me when there's something like this with A BIG LONG INSCRIPTION JUMPING OUT IN ALL CAPITALS, when we really want the reader to be paying attention to the actual article text.
On 25 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ordos people, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi again! Yes, I found Konow's book in a box today (many of my books are stored in boxes, unfortunately) so I do have the inscription and I could either send you all of Sten Konow's interesting notes including the original text and translation (pp. 23 to 29 of his Kharosthi Inscriptions) by scanning the pages and sending them to you via email or, if you prefer, I will just type out the translation itself (only about half a page). But, unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days as I have 6 guests arriving this morning and will probably have to devote most of the next few days to them. Please let me know which you prefer. I could quickly scan and email the appropriate pages to you if you send me an email address. Cheers, John Hill17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed that you had removed almost all my addition at Yuezhi for no reason. Stop this alright, I am not particular in good mood. And you added a citiation like what? For crying out loud, Shiji to assert Yuezhi existed in 6th century BC? Who would buy this crap anyway? Eiorgiomugini00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any quote for it? Because I certainly cannot locate them from the original texts, they are found in nowhere, if you do have the quote, please do provide one. Thanks Eiorgiomugini06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GoryokakuVideo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:HermaeusLP.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I noticed that the guy reported you on WP:AN3. My condolences. You are not the first one (the last time he did that to me he was blocked for a week). Actually, his constant revert warring, incivility, arbitrary removal of referenced material, joined to contempt for English grammar, made me abandon editing articles even remotely related to China. I still hope that he can be reformed. Our opinions about each other may be found at the top of Nlu's talk page. And let me remind you that you may express your opinion on his behaviour here. --Ghirla-трёп-17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just overwrote your recent edit to this article. I hit an edit conflict and, since my edit was a massive re-org, I figured it would be easier to re-do your edit than it would be to re-do mine. No disrespect was intended. Would you please re-read the intro of the current version and re-do whatever edits you think are needed to improve it?
I'm PericlesofAthens, love the artwork you have. The reason that I'm bugging you is that the picture for the article on the ancient Han Dynasty Chinese scientist Zhang Heng has gone missing, probably due to a copyright issue. I was wondering if you had any spare time to draw your own take on Zhang Heng, from a list of portrait paintings found on google images. It doesn't have to be a da Vinci masterpiece or anything, just a simple sketch would do (but if you do have the time to do a painting, by all means, do so!)
Greco-Buddhism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Hi there PHG. You've done a great job on Buddhism over the years, but I feel that this article needs to be modernised and improved to current FA standards. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you have created many maps (all look great, btw). In fact, I've used one of yours in Economy of Ancient Tamil Country. I wanted to create a map showing the locations of 10-15 cities in the ancient Tamil country (modern-day Tamil Nadu + Kerala). What is the best way to go about doing this ? I have a book that has these location marked, but on different maps. I was hoping to create one by hand and consolidate all the locations there. Is there any software or a wiki tool that lets us do this ? Thanks. Lotlil03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Sillan crown you uploaded for one of your templates (thank you and good job by the way) was from the Musee Guimet and so I was wondering if you had taken any other pictures of the Korean art there. Particularly, I am looking for an image of the pensive Maitreya from Paekche exhibited at that museum. I didn't see it on your user page here and am assuming that you don't use the PHG account on Wikipedia Commons all that often which is why I'm asking. I guess while I'm at it, do you have any other Japanese Buddhist sculpture images?
By the way, I have an image of a later Korean gilt-bronze crown that is more stylistically and chronologically contemperaneous (probably) to the Kofun crown you uploaded that I can send you if you're interested once I have access to a cord for my camera.
Wow! Thanks for taking the time to go and take great photos, look to see if you took the photo of the specific image requsted (in my case), and generously share them. I really appreciate it. Please let me know if I can help you with anything in the future. Tortfeasor23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That template is full of fair use images, but the template is not used in any articles. What is your plan for it? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you help. Please can you keep an eye on this aticle for the next 3 months or so. Please can you apply the same rigour you have applied to articles on wikipedia to the article on the Porus article there is user (User:Intothefire) saying King Porus was from the Kukhran according to Oral history. I mean come on this outrageous to even post something like this on Wikipedia without any references or verifiable references but say ORAL HISTORY says he was from the Kukhran is appalling. I am Indian and there is NO scholar or University academic who says he was from the some fringe group called the Kukhran. Most Indian academics would be appalled by this falsehood and unsubstantiated claim. Please take this up immediately and apply your regular rigour to this article - absolutely appalling abuse of Wikipedia.--Sikh historian23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following advice from the Wikipedia lawyer that the images are indeed copyrightable, I have tagged the following images with the {{non-free currency}}. But I think it is possible to replace the images with free ones, since someone else could phtograph the coins. Therefore I have marked the images as replaceable fair use. Another admin will review them in several days and delete them if he or she agrees they are replaceable. You can dispute that any of them is replaceable using this procedure:
On the image discussion (talk) page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable.
On a separate note, WP:NFCC#9 does not allow fair use images on templates (cleaning up those images is how I encountered these in the first place). You maintain several templates that use these fair use images; either the templates need to be substituted (subst:) into an article, or the fair use images need to be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he account Ancientcoinsofindia was mine but i forgot the password ( as it was not used since long time) and hence created another account Ancientcoinsofindia1 . i am not familier with editing . My intention is not to advertise or to promote . My website is not commercial but it is educational . All images i had uploaded are my sole property . i had offered every image and information free of cost for wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license (Use with proper attribution to my wesite).
Thanks so much for the Rosetta Stone Barnstar! I am thrilled and proud to receive it - and it is a special honour coming from you, as you have done so much to make the Asian history pages informative, accurate and beautiful. Thank you, and bows, John Hill07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed you posted this award some time ago - sorry I have taken so long to reply - I hardly ever look at my own page and I just missed it. Cheers, John
Hi. I retouched Image:AinuCeremonialDress.jpg a bit so it focused on the clothing and no longer featured your reflaction/everything else reflecting onto it. [4] Would you like to use this instead? I didn't retouch the other Ainu image of yours since it seemed fine. --Mahaloha04:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fubuki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pmgpmg10:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Katarina Vilioni is a nice short article, so I really should write a Latin version. But what to call Yangzhou has me hesitating: surely the European community there at the time had their own name for it, if not in Latin, then at least in some westerized form.
Also, please let me know if you received the article I sent: I worry that I got your address somehow wrong.
Hi, great article and illustrations. I am very curious about the picture you posted of the group of military advisors taken before their departure for Japan. You give the source as Le Monde Illustre, I guess from 1866? Do you have any further citation such a page no. or a secondary source that has this pic? I am doing research on another Frenchman in Japan roughly at this time and was wondering if he was part of that expedition. The original source might provide names. Thanks for any help you can give! Straitgate05:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. He is kind of obscure and signs himself G. Pradier. Apparently he arrived in Japan in 1865 however, so it may be too early for the Brunet party. He says he departed in late 1867. There was another Pradier, Auguste Pradier whom Christian Polak in his work Soie et Lumieres mentions as being with Brunet so I am just trying to get to the bottom of it. The Pradier I am talking about also participated in the expedition against Korea in 1866, it is that aspect I am researching but first trying to confirm his identity. Straitgate19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have an edit war, I suggest we stop reverting the Japanese Paleolithic page. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style asking for an interpretation of the consistency policy.
However, I would ask that you not comment for a while until editors have had a chance to put their views across, so as not to prejudice the discussion. I have not put my own view across yet. If we are lucky the opinions expressed will be fairly uniform. If there is an either-way discussion we can add our thoughts too. John Smith's14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MuseeGuimetCaption.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot06:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I haven't seen you around WPCHINA before, welcome to our little project. I see you have an interest in Tibet, I hope you can bring some much needed balance to our coverage of the subject. --Ideogram16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MuseeGuimetCaption.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Japan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. John Smith's12:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG, I was just wondering why you were using Rene Grousset as a source for crusade articles? That's a pretty old book and there are a lot more recent works to choose from (in English as well as French). It seems kind of odd so I thought I would ask. Adam Bishop07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great contributions! However, I would like to make sure that you are familiar with Wikipedia's fair use image policies. A screenshot from the movie Braveheart, for example, can only be used in articles directly related to the film (the film itself, maybe the actors pictured, and maybe the historical figure in question). However, in other articles, where the image is only used to identify and highlight the historical figure (i.e. no relation to the film itself), there is no justification for using a non-free fair use image. I went ahead and replaced the image with a free one in the two articles I saw it. Please be aware of Wikipedia's image policies in the future as you continue to write great articles. Please contact me if you have any questions. Savidan02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that article today, which seems to be predominantly your creation. It seems quite comprehensive and well-sourced with lots of nice images and quotations from primary sources. Good work! Srnec17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG. :) It's my hope that there's just a bit of misunderstanding here that'll get ironed out once we get our sources squared away. I see that you've done a phenomenal amount of superb work on Wikipedia, and I look forward to getting to know you better. :) I'm lining up my own sources on the Templars now -- I spent several hours last night pulling lots of books off of shelves, and am continuing with the research today. I've also fired off an email to Malcolm Barber, since he had helped before with proofreading our Knights Templar article. I haven't been able to persuade him to actually join Wikipedia, but he's definitely a valuable source of information regarding this time period.
Could you let me know which books about the Templars that you currently have, so I can make sure that we're "reading from the same page"? For example, which of the Barber books do you have? Do you have The Crusades Through Arab Eyes? Or how about some of the "debunking" books, such as Newman's The Real History Behind the Templars or Burstein's Secrets of the Code? I'm open to simply transcribing sections from my books so that you can read them yourself, but it would be easier if I could just point at page numbers. Best, Elonka20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't have either of those books, so we may end up transcribing to each other. :) Also, just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing: I am in agreement that the Mongols were attempting to ally with the "Franj", the Europeans, against the Mamluks. It was indeed a major topic around that time, as the Mamluks had taken over Egypt and were pushing north, the Mongols were pushing west, which displaced the Turks, who took over Jerusalem, and the Christians were getting squeezed out to the West, and there was quite a bit of diplomacy going on, with the desire to form an alliance between the Christians on the West and the Mongols on the East, to form a "pincer" in which to capture the Mamluks. In that general sense, I think we have agreement? Where we're in disagreement, is in the amount of involvement that the Templars had in this diplomacy, and whether or not the Templars were a substantial fighting force in alliance with the Mongols. According to my sources, they weren't (yes, I'm lining up specific refs, though right now I'm just trying to get my arms around the problem). So I guess my question for you is, do your books specifically state the information about de Molay, or was this something that you "filled in" from other websites? Also, are you by any chance on IMs or on IRC? I get the feeling that some direct two-way communication might be beneficial here. :) Thanks, Elonka21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG, could you please drop me a line in email so that I have your address, and then I'll send you that PDF? My address is elonka@aol.com . Also, for the record, I hope you're not taking my strong stance at Franco-Mongol alliance, personally? I have great respect for you as an editor, and feel that our current back-and-forth is going to result in a very strong article, indeed. I'm very much enjoying expanding my knowledge about the Mongols, and hope that you're feeling the same as you learn more about the European and Templar events from that time period. In some ways, I see our debate almost like a microcosm of the events of the 13th century, as you with your expertise about the Mongols, are advancing and meshing with my knowledge about the Templars! :) Best, Elonka23:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've been checking my email but haven't received anything yet. Maybe the wiki-servers are slow? If you'd like to write to me directly, just send a note to elonka@aol.com . Best, Elonka23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I have to admit some very strong concerns about your recent additions to the article at Franco-Mongol alliance, and feel that you're doing too much original research. The Crusades are well-documented, and for you to be making such a major claim as "The Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300", makes me very uncomfortable. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and you're effectively trying to add information that is in opposition to what scores of reliable books and articles have said about that time in history. Please, I urge you to proceed with caution. --Elonka16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a teen, I was captivated by Gumilev's speculation that Temujin's mother was a Nestorian Christian and that explained his lenient attitude to Christian populations. Ever since then, I wished to write something on these subjects. Crap, you beat me to it. --Ghirla-трёп-13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found the problem. The resolution per exif (300 dpi) didn't jive with that of the jpeg data (72 dpi). Incidentally (but not directly the problem), the file doesn't have a JFIF header, and starts with the EXIF header right away. -- Fullstop21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image displays fine now. Appears to have been due to the "technical difficulties" referred to in the "The Wikimedia servers encountered technical difficulties earlier this week, and as a result, some images will not display. To correct this, click the image to see the description page, and purge the cache." messages. -- Fullstop23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I am trying to be patient here, but I am getting very tired of the edit conflicts at Franco-Mongol alliance. Based on your contribs, it would seem that you have "camped" on the article nearly 24 hours/day, and we're to the point now that when I try to make an edit, that you revert it within minutes. I realize that you feel strongly about this subject, but trying to push things to the limit of 3RR is not helpful. I would appreciate if you would back off from the article for at least a few hours, and give me some time to work on it, rather than hanging on my every tweak. --Elonka04:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elonka. Just understand I just woke up, and you already reverted several of my modifications of the morning (no, I am not on this 24 hours a day, far from it :)). Please realize 99% of the content you have been adding is staying in: you can allow the remaining 1% to be modified by other users don't you think? How about some tolerance here? PHG04:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, isn't this getting kind of silly? I'm trying to edit the page, and you're following along behind, reverting most of what I do. You're even reverting me when I'm trying to archive a talkpage. I've been trying to wait to try and find a time when you're not editing the page, but you seem to be camped on this thing nearly 24/7. Looking at your contribs, you're not really working on anything else, and it looks like you're barely sleeping, you're so intent on this article. Please, can you take a break for awhile, take a nap or something, and just let me edit the article? --Elonka12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elonka. I am afraid somebody is getting over-excited here... I just put forward again some of the important quotes in the article. Best regards. PHG12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) And again, you jump in while I'm in the middle of editing. :/ BTW, in all your research, have you ever taken a moment to at least glance at my userpage? You have my gender wrong. ;) --Elonka05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William's chronicle was continued in Latin and especially in French long after he died. Sometimes these are all known collectively as "William of Tyre", but usually with some qualifier ("continuators", "Rothelin", "Acre", "Ernoul", "Bernard", "Eracles", "Lyons", etc, depending on the version). The Medieval Sourcebook pages lumps them all together into one text, which is not quite right...I think the Templar of Tyre is actually a separate chronicle. Adam Bishop15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, this comment was uncalled for, where you said you were having doubts about my competence.[5] Can you please try to be more WP:CIVIL, and try to focus your arguments on the article, instead of on the editors? Thanks, Elonka21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:SteinMummy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy note to inform you that Elonka launched a complaint against you here. Perhaps you should list your arguments there, so that non-involved editors could step in and resolve your dispute. Best, --Ghirla-трёп-18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Dear Elonka. This is so nice of you to attack me on all boards you can think of... Why don't you just stick with specifics and recognize what sources say? Balanced editing and NPOV presentation of sources should help you stay away from this kind of ridiculous arguments. Best regards. PHG07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the vast majority of other editors are disagreeing with you. Perhaps you should rethink your own position, before this escalates further? It would be helpful for you to apologize for your actions, acknowledge community consensus, and promise to cease edit-warring and engaging in tendentious editing. But as long as you keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong, I'm afraid that this is going to get worse before it gets better. --Elonka08:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elonka. Number 1) is about keeping a title or not for a sub-article: no big deal, and this is very peripheral to our main subject. Number 2) is about you slandering me, and I just responded. Number 3) is an ancient discussion. Number 4) is basically the same as Number 1). So how about the central subject matter of the Franco-Mongol alliance?: you lost the vote to change the name, your vaunted 3:1 support disappeared, and it has been made obvious that you misinterpret sources to fit your storyline. Keep you attacks as long as you want, but there is no way you can deny, eliminate and corrupt reputable sources in favour of your point of view. Best regards. PHG08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I suggest you break down any content disputes to individual issues by article. Instead of endless wrangling with Elonka, it would be best to submit each issue to the most appropriate form for resolution. You can request mediation, WP:RFC, or whatever you like from the menu at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I also recommend that you try to see the good in whatever Elonka may be doing. I doubt she's 100% pure evil. If you can find common ground and once in a while agree with her, you may find that this helps to avoid conflict. If these dispute resolution tactics fail, I think we should take the matter to WP:RFAR. Feel free to use my talk page. I'm going to stop adding to that very long ANI thread. - JehochmanTalk14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indo-Greek Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Hi there PHG. I was reading this article and found a number of stylistic, referencing and prose issues that I felt to below the ideal level for an FA. Since there is also a POV controversy, or allegation thereof with which I am not qualified to comment on, I felt it might good to try and clear the slate once and for all. This would save having to review the style and prose at a second time. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:BSarnath-detail.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen100:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jacques de Molay. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. WjBscribe09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Eupator, hereby award you this Barnstar of National Merit for all the work you have done to improve the coverage of Cilician Armenia on Wikipedia and the creation as well as maintenance of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Keep up the great work!
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~
The Franco-Mongol alliance article is truly fascinating. I always wondered when will something such as that be finally created here as it's such an important topic. Btw I had added the Delaborde painting in color to Gosdantin III of Armenia because he was the reigning King in 1347 but you added it to Gosdantin II of Armenia? Is the English title of the painting "Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem Restoring Religion in Armenia in 1347" incorrect?--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LesTempliersDailliez.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What books on the Indo-Greeks have you actually read through, cover to cover (Complete electronic versions count, if read through; the sort of snippets or chunks that Google Books usually serves up do not)?
What languages can you read for comprehension?
To how many kings have the Demetrius Anicetus coins been ascribed, and by whom? (No hints, Sponsianus, please.)
Hi Pmanderson.
Here are the books I personnally own and have read, which bear some relation to the Indo-Greeks:
PHG's "Indo-Greek" books (well, most of them).
Bopearachchi, Osmund (1991). Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. ISBN2-7177-1825-7.
Avari, Burjor (2007). India: The ancient past. Routledge. ISBN0415356164.
Faccenna, Domenico (1980). Butkara I (Swāt, Pakistan) 1956–1962, Volume III 1 (in English). Rome: IsMEO (Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente).
McEvilley, Thomas (2002). The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. Allworth Press and the School of Visual Arts. ISBN1-58115-203-5.
Puri, Baij Nath (2000). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN81-208-0372-8.
Tarn, W. W. (1984). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Chicago: Ares. ISBN0-89005-524-6.
Narain, A.K. (2003). The Indo-Greeks (in English). B.R. Publishing Corporation. "revised and supplemented" from Oxford University Press edition of 1957.
Narain, A.K. (1976). The coin types of the Indo-Greeks kings (in English). Chicago, USA: Ares Publishing. ISBN0-89005-109-7.
Cambon, Pierre (2007). Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés (in French). Musée Guimet. ISBN9782711852185.
Keown, Damien (2003). A Dictionary of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-860560-9.
Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN2-9516679-2-2.
Boardman, John (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN0-691-03680-2.
Errington, Elizabeth; Joe Cribb; Maggie Claringbull; Ancient India and Iran Trust; Fitzwilliam Museum (1992). The Crossroads of Asia : transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. ISBN0-9518399-1-8.
Bopearachchi, Osmund; Smithsonian Institution; National Numismatic Collection (U.S.) (1993). Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins in the Smithsonian Institution. Washington: National Numismatic Collection, Smithsonian Institution. OCLC 36240864.
東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan); 兵庫県立美術館 (Hyogo Kenritsu Bijutsukan) (2003). Alexander the Great : East-West cultural contacts from Greece to Japan. Tokyo: 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan). OCLC 53886263.
Lowenstein, Tom (2002). The vision of the Buddha : Buddhism, the path to spiritual enlightenment. London: Duncan Baird. ISBN1-903296-91-9.
Foltz, Richard (2000). Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN0-312-23338-8.
Marshall, Sir John Hubert (2000). The Buddhist art of Gandhara : the story of the early school, its birth, growth, and decline. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN81-215-0967-X.
Mitchiner, John E.; Garga (1986). The Yuga Purana : critically edited, with an English translation and a detailed introduction. Calcutta, India: Asiatic Society. OCLC 15211914 ISBN81-7236-124-6.
Salomon, Richard. "The "Avaca" Inscription and the Origin of the Vikrama Era" Vol. 102.
Banerjee, Gauranga Nath (1961). Hellenism in ancient India. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. OCLC 1837954 ISBN0-8364-2910-9. (I don't have this one with me right now)
Bussagli, Mario; Francine Tissot; Béatrice Arnal (1996). L'art du Gandhara (in French). Paris: Librairie générale française. ISBN2-253-13055-9.
Marshall, John (1956). Taxila. An illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at Taxila (3 volumes) (in English). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
(2005) "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l'est et l'ouest" (in French/English). Belgium: Brepols. ISBN2503516815.
Seldeslachts, E. (2003). The end of the road for the Indo-Greeks? (in English). (Also available online): Iranica Antica, Vol XXXIX, 2004.
Senior, R.C. (2006). Indo-Scythian coins and history. Volume IV. (in English). Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.. ISBN0-9709268-6-3.
Demetrius I, "ANIKETOS", i.e. "Invincible" (Pedigree coin minted by Agathocles).
Question 2: my best source would be Bopearachchi on Demetrius Aniketos:
Collin Kraay attributed the coin to a 3rd Demetrios
Senior ignores the difference between the first and the second Demetrios, although he mentions the portrait looks different.
Bopearachchi attributes it to a second Demetrios, circa 100 av JC.
Since you're asking this question, I suppose that you are not aware that Agathokles minted pedigree coins of the first Demetrius with the adjective "ANIKETOS"? (See Bopearachchi, and my photograph of one of these coins at the British Museum here). This is actually the first "Demetrius Aniketos" to be documented... Regards PHG06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:LesTempliersDailliez.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:LesTempliersDailliez.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot15:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:NarainCoverPage.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:NarainCoverPage.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have finally got around to having a proper read of the fabulous Indo-Greek article. Congratulations! It is truly great - a detailed yet clear, balanced and well-referenced account of an extremely difficult, shadowy and contentious period of history. Well-done! I have fixed a few typos and corrected a few spelling mistakes but also changed the "Notes" sction to "Footnotes" and moved it above the "References" section so it is easier for readers to check. Please have a look at the changes I have made and change them back if you don't like them. Now, I will go and add my comments to recommend the article. It surely deserves Featured Article status. All best wishes, John Hill23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
PHG, please be more cautious with how you're dealing with tags. You removed some notability and source tags from Laurent Dailliez,[7] which was inappropriate considering that you created the article. You also added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to a draft version of an article that was still in my userspace, User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance.[8] And, as I thought you already knew, you shouldn't add a disputed tag unless you also post a rationale somewhere as to why you're disputing this information. If, however, you would like to provide a list of your concerns about the draft version of the article, I'd be happy to review them. --Elonka19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just read and voted for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom. I really do not understand what is the problem after all these changes. What is the actual status now? Why, after all these changes there are still people arguing? I am interested in your opinion, but do not waste your time, just 5-6 lines are enough, either in my discussion page here or there.--FocalPoint19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, veuillez pardonner mon pauvre français, mais s'il vous plait, pouvez-vous être un peu patient avec moi?: Je ne parviens pas à comprendre pourquoi vous êtes tellement en colère au sujet de l'article Franco-Mongol alliance. Je pense que vous êtes habituellement un très bon éditeur. Vous faites beaucoup de recherche, et vous êtes brillant à trouver des images pour Wikipédia.
Mais, il semble que lorsqu'il ya un désaccord sur Wikipédia, qu'il est très difficile pour vous de compromis. Beaucoup de nombreuses fois, je constate que, dans un conflit, vous insister sur le fait que vous ne voulez que votre chemin, et vous n'avez pas prêter attention à ce que les autres personnes ont à dire. Est-ce parce que nous parlons des langues differentes d'habitude? Si je vous écris d'une façon qui fait qu'il est difficile pour vous de comprendre, je suis désolée, et je suis prêt à essayer de changer. Je veux travailler avec vous sur Wikipédia, au lieu de contre vous. Au lieu des combats, il est possible que nous puissions trouver une solution de compromis? Cordialement, Elonka19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Elonka, et merci pour ton gentil message. Je ne suis pas du tout "en colère" concernant l'article sur l'Alliance Franco-Mongole. Toutes les opinions sont bienvenues, mais je croie profondément aux principes "d'équilibre" et de NPOV défendus par Wikipedia. J'insiste non pas pour qu'un point de vue particulier soit représenté, mais au contraire pour qu'une position de compromis soit représentée ("An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance..."), ce qui est très différent et très Wikipédien. Ma proposition intègre déjà la tienne, alors que ta position est exclusive et unique ("Only attempts at an alliance"). Ce n'est vraiment pas très difficile, et je sais que "la loi Wikipédienne" est de mon coté sur ce point ("According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" [9]). Je respecte tes contributions si elles sont correctement citées et sourcées... and I expect you to to do the same with mine. Ce n'est pas un combat d'un POV contre un autre, mais juste une question d'intégrer différents POVs académiques autour d'un sujet donné. Meilleures salutations. PHG12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HistoiredesCroisadesJeanRichard.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:HistoiredesCroisadesJeanRichard.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
On our mediation, the mediator, who went through the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach,...
This is not true. I did indeed ask, "What's wrong with just presenting both (or, perhaps more appropriately, all) interpretations of the status of this as an alliance?" but I never favored your version. In response to my question about presenting both views, Elonka agreed that they should both be presented ("Of course we should present both views."). So, both you and Elonka appear to be in agreement on that point. There's no way my statement could be used to gain leverage over Elonka or to support an idea involving "4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu)".
Also, while I'm here, I'm curious why this dispute has spilled out onto the talk page of this particular article. There are a couple of suggestions made by Elonka on the talk page of the mediation that you have not yet addressed. -- tariqabjotu19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariqabjotu. What I actually had in mind was your following statement: "Well, what do you think of beginning the article with something to the effect of "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#References), as PHG suggested in the comment just prior to yours here?", which I did understand as an appareciation of the fact that my proposal is actually a compromise proposal which incorporates both points of view. Best regards. PHG11:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. It was not an appreciation for your proposal. I was just asking for Elonka's opinion on the sentence in the same manner I asked for your opinion on Elonka's suggestions here. Also, this page is not conducive to friendly mediation and suggests to me you are preparing some sort of action against Elonka instead of seriously working with her. -- tariqabjotu17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a private page on Wikipedia. Editors are free to edit content - its a Wiki. Keeping drafts of articles is quite different to keeping opinions on other editors. You certainly may not use a subpage to present your biased view of another editor and not allow others to rebut that view. If you insist on using the page in that way, I believe it would qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. WjBscribe18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know both you and Elonka are really into this issue. I know, you probably don't feel like you should do this, but if you sent Elonka a quick message that you were maybe a little overrambunctious with reverting the article, it would go a long way to help moving this issue along. Thanks, Mindraker13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, instead of continuing to spread the dispute out to other articles,[10] can you please just focus on participating at mediation? --Elonka20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:DailliezNotesFromJacquesDeMolay.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:DailliezNotesFromJacquesDeMolay.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG: Hope you are well. I was wondering, do you know what number from the 48 Buddhas this bodhisattva [11] that you uploaded is? Thanks for your time and help, as always. Please let me know if I can help you with anything. Thanks again. Tortfeasor01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the notability tag as Elonka was kind enough to withdraw her objection for now. I posted a talk page entry for Dailliez in what really needs to be done. Thank you! Monsieurdl14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG. Actually, on most Wiki processes 9:4, or 70% in one direction, would constitute consensus. "Consensus" is a misnomer in many cases around here—it's really supermajority. However, we don't just count numbers at FAR. There were clearly concerns over the factual accuracy that had persisted across more than six weeks of review. The prose concerns also remain outstanding: see the sentence beginning "Since the term..." right in the first para.
It may be cold comfort, but I like to think that where an article improves, the loss of status isn't entirely bad. You have added to the sources and filled out the page and it can go back to FAC with some more work. User:Blnguyen is a great editor. You might drop a note asking him/her her for help workshopping the 1c concerns. Marskell (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of my claim is two-and-a-half years on Wikipedia. I would be comfortable, for instance, closing an AfD as delete at 70%, where I felt there was valid delete rationale(s). It's not just the numbers, as I've already said. And you're assuming that default is keep at FAR if there's no consensus. The closest we have to a default is "would this pass with the same commentary at FAC?" In this case, no. Marskell (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had kept this at 30% rather than removing at 70% I would be in a for a much more obvious charge of ignoring consensus. There is no default keep at FAR, your wiki-lawyering aside; a given FAR should be able to pass at FAC. If you believe this still meets the criteria take it back there and see if others agree. Marskell (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAR's rules were well abided by, your ability to exploit its phrasing notwithstanding: I interpreted it as consensus for a change in status and have explained to you why I felt the outstanding concerns were non-trivial. Bureaucrat discretion begins around 70% on RfA. I can show you current AfDs that have gone delete at 50/50. I was well within my discretion on this one. See if you can work out how to get rid of the dispute tag on the article and take it back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I am concerned by your recent addition of this information to Pope Clement V.[12] In the edit, you are adding very strong language about the existence of an alliance between Europe and the Mongols. As I am sure you are aware, we are currently in a mediation about this topic at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, especially about the importance of representing different opinions in a balanced manner, rather than trying to give undue weight to minority opinions. Accordingly, rather than continuing to add information on this topic to more and more articles, could you instead please put more energy into participating at mediation? Thanks, Elonka16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elonka. Nice to see you back after a 10 days absence... I am afraid you are not really in a position to ask others to "put more energy into participating at mediation" since you haven't contributed anything for the last two weeks. Stop harassing other users who just enjoy contributing more (perfectly referenced) material to Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up for expanding the Mahmud Ghazan and the other Mongol-related articles, I was wondering when would the Ghazan article grow, and now it looks much much better than its state when I posted the comment on the article's discussion page. If you could only find that citation about his Christian mother it would be great! :) Regards, John Hyams (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, just as a nudge, we are awaiting your input at the Mediation. You're obviously still interested in the topic, as I see you adding alliance-related information to multiple other articles; however you haven't participated at Mediation in a few days. Can I ask you to please devote a bit more attention there? I feel like we were making some progress, and don't want to lose momentum.
What I'd genuinely like to see happen, is that we iron out our few remaining differences, get the Franco-Mongol alliance article unprotected and cleaned up, and then submit it again for FA. I think it will be a great Featured article that would be a feather in both our caps, and I think we'd both be relieved to get this dispute behind us. So, can you please try to participate a bit more often at mediation? S'il vous plait? :) --Elonka18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariqabjotu. I know that this mediation must be frustrating, but I guess it is the only way to move forward. Even if it's time-consuming, it is probably better than edit-warring and long talk-page arguments. I really appreciate many of your comments and wish you could agree to keep your role for the time being. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. The mediation is actually not very time-consuming for me, and it would become less so as my semester draws to a close in the coming weeks. As I noted in my closing rationale, I stated there was the participants' unwillingness to participate in good faith. For example, every week or two, someone has to begin finger-pointing that the reason the mediation isn't working is because of the other participant. I am not going to elaborate on my specific reasons any further unless another mediator asks me to, because such reasons are aimed more at one of you than the other. But, ultimately, no, I am not going to re-assume my role as mediator in this case. The case is closed. -- tariqabjotu16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very important for all parties to recognize and respect that all communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, the Mediation Committee pledges to protect any and all communications made during mediation, and in particular will attempt to prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.
As a result, some of your RfA comment constitutes inadmissible evidence (especially because that wasn't true). I would do it for you, but I'm afraid I'm going to reword it incorrectly. If you do not fix the comment soon, however, I will delete it for you. -- tariqabjotu14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page is a huge draw on the Wikipedia servers because of the number of images it has (250+ I think). One load of your user page probably equals to 100+ page views of the average regular article. Its just a suggestion though and you can ignore it but if you moved all the heavy stuff to say /images and have only a few pictures, that would probably help the servers. Extra load on the servers costs Wikipedia extra money in the end. You're a great contributor nonetheless. Again feel free to ignore my suggestion. --Matt57(talk•contribs)18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ashokavadana.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please see Image talk:Ashokavadana.jpg. Basically, the policy is that we are supposed to be using book covers like that when we are discussing the book itself. The two articles it is being used at are not discussions of the book itself but of the content within the book. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry but I still disagree. See the image talk page. If there any way to get an actual picture of the Ashokavadana or something like that you know of? I mean, the statute on the cover of the book should not been copyrighted so in theory a picture would work. If not, then we should put a picture of Asoka on the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Maarat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The decision was fine and the consensus was there. As with her last RFA, the opposers turned it into such a circus that they lost a lot of credibility. You're the last person that should be worried about her having sysop tools - she could never be considered unbiased enough to use sysop tools against you. She'd likely be desysopped pretty quickly if she did. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wknight94. I don't agree that 74% is a consensus, although I understand Wikipedia rules may give discretion to a bureaucrat to tilt a decision one way or the other. I can tell you Opposion to Elonka was generally highly motivated, and as far as I know, justified. What is a "circus" indeed is to have to deal with Elonka when her opinion differs from yours. Actually for the last 3 days of the RfA, Oppose votes roughly equalled Support votes in number: the reality is that Oppose got more and more steam as the discussion drew on. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship:However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances. In the discretionary spread, with 69% "likely fail" and 75% "likely win", Elonka wound up on the "win" end, with a clear trend through 3 RfAs of increasing support, at the very end of the vote (it was scheduled to close hours before it did). --- tqbf19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:DailliezNotesFromJacquesDeMolay.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:DailliezNotesFromJacquesDeMolay.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "choose [Elonka] as an Administrator" -- I merely closed her RFA. She was nominated and supported by dozens of other editors. The percentage you mention is firmly within the oft-discussed discretionary range (70%-80%) wherein bureaucrats may decide as they see fit. As for the percentage decreasing daily, I cannot guess what might have happened had her RFA lasted two weeks instead of one. No earth-shattering new information was introduced in the last day before its closing; a week is the traditional period in which anybody who wishes to comment may do so; I saw no reason to extend discussion. All I could do, therefore, was interpret the comments already present.
When you "thought Administrators were supposed to be chosen by consensus", you thought aright. My job is to decide what makes a consensus and what does not. This one was a very close call -- right in the middle of the discretionary range. I read the whole thing, as well as most of her second RFA. The objections did not seem to be of terrible concern (e.g. "No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed", where in fact she gave extensive indication to that effect in the answers to her questions; "Still not comfortable with her having the tools" with no reason given; "far to many questionable edits" with no examples, even when asked for examples, etc.) and were mediated by plenty of compliments and reluctance ("Elonka is a great editor, and I do wish her the best"; "Elonka is a smart editor" "[I am] reluctant to oppose this RfA", etc.).
Yes, many editors objected; yes, some of their objections were reasoned and thoughtful. Perhaps I should have said "several of the objections did not seem to be of terrible concern". Remember that this was a borderline case between 'no consensus' and 'clear consensus in favor' -- my decision, as I mentioned, was a matter of deciding whether the balance tipped, even a little, in either direction; I judged, and stand by my judgment, that it tipped in Elonka's favor. Some editors had strong objections to her becoming an administrator, but several others had weak objections, and many others (74% of those who participated, in fact) had no objections at all. The serious objectors were a small minority in this case. The process operated according to its own rules and Elonka was promoted. There was nothing irregular about this case. I'm afraid that's just how RFA works. — Dan | talk07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a lot edits are by you and first of all my thanks for that. I have translated the article for the nl: wiki (nl:Arghun) but I was asked to redo the references by using ref name="something" more consistently. Frankly I cannot: I got lost in it. E.g. there is multiple mention of Jackson but who is he?
I took the liberty to put a clean up template on the lemma and hope that you would have a look at it.
Yeah, sorry about that, I did include it in the original update but Binguyen removed it after he noticed it was largely created with content from another article. You did at least get one in though :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, stop creating POV forks. As I am sure you are well aware, we already had an AfD, and the resounding consensus was that we didn't need the article Mongol raids on Jerusalem, so it was deleted.[13][14] But now I see that you went ahead and created Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) instead? Sorry, but no. The new article should be deleted. Please merge any relevant information from it, into Mongol raids into Palestine instead. Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia. --Elonka19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is usefull to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, that is a total distortion. Let's look at the actual facts:
And I see you just made another POV fork, with a highly biased title, Armeno-Mongol alliance, which you know is a highly controversial and non-neutral title. Are you deliberately trying to cause conflict here? A better and much more neutral title would be "Armeno-Mongol relations". You also copy/pasted in a lot of information from Franco-Mongol alliance, including many sources that have nothing to do with the topic. This is very disruptive behavior, PHG, you really must stop. --Elonka20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who distorts things here. You specifically insisted that the AfD was on the original title, and actually complained when I tried to change to "Mongol raids". The AfD was therefore on "Mongol conquest". Is "Armeno-Mongol alliance" disruptive?... this is a highly standard wording among historians. PHG (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I don't know what your motivation is here, but you're wasting the time of a lot of good editors, with more and more ridiculous claims. Please, stop. --Elonka20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't propose it, you proposed it. You are correct that I agreed with it, months ago. But since then, we have had extensive discussions about how the relations between the Mongols and the Armenians were not an "alliance" but were a vassal-overlord relationship. It's pretty low, PHG, for you to try and quote something I said in September, when you know very well that we've been disagreeing about this exact issue for months. The article should have a neutral title, and the best way to do that is to call it "relations" not "alliance".
PHG, you've been pushing this biased POV about how the Mongols had this alliance with the West, and how together the Mongols and the Westerners "captured" Jerusalem in 1300. But PHG, it's not true. You are trying to use Wikipedia to rewrite history. Your actions have been challenged, but you have continued to argue with me, and with other knowledgeable Wikipedians such as Adam Bishop and John Kenney. You are also disregarding the opinion of every editor who took time to participate in the article's RfC. Every editor who knows about this issue, is telling you that you're wrong and you need to back off, but you keep right on edit-warring and arguing with everyone. You are putting false information into Wikipedia, and you are using bad sources, such as obvious mistakes in history books, or you are sourcing things to urban legends or dubious primary sources from hundreds of years ago. This is disruptive to Wikipedia, and is wasting people's time. Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop. --Elonka06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I once read that Wikipedia is not about what is true or not, but about what published authoritative sources write or not about a given subject. Your comment that the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is not true doesn't make much sense in that context. The statement about the capture of Jerusalem is backed up by multiple reputable sources which I know of (starting with Alain Demurger), although I agree there are also opinions to the contrary. This is just a matter of presenting the various scholarly opinions on the subject. PHG (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior with the recreation of deleted material (note that it's material, not titles) and attempting to have your way in a content dispute is edit warring. Please consider this an official warning from someone who is both uninvolved and uninterested. Whatever your concerns, you must work them out through proper channels, and not by attempting an end-around on consensus. Geogre (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, I had initially been very impressed with the quantity of images that you were locating for Wikipedia, but I am now getting very concerned. For example, this recent image that you uploaded: Image:Mongol soldiers by Rashid al-Din 1305.JPG You said that this came from the 14th century manuscript by Rashid al-Din, but no, what you did was that you scanned in the cover of the book Mongols and the West by Peter Jackson (historian). You even cropped the image so as to avoid the text at the top and bottom of the cover.[16] The problems with this are twofold: (1) When you upload an image, you are supposed to state where you got it from; and (2) Jackson's book was published in the UK, and by my understanding of copyright guidelines, Wikipedia is not allowed to use such images if they are from UK books. See this information page at the Commons, where it lists the relevant laws in different countries, and UK books are "not OK".[17] A scan of a historical image from an old book would be okay, but Jackson's book was published in 2005. I recommend that you review all images that you have uploaded, and ensure that you're listing the actual source for them. Also, any images which came from British books, should be deleted. --Elonka06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the book by Jackson was inded published in the UK, but you will notice however that the picture was taken in France (Bibliotheque Nationale) by a German company (AKG-Images), which makes it dependent on French copyright laws. France is listed as "Inconclusive" regarding PD-Art (it is not "generally considered to be protected by copyright" for faithfull reproduction of ancient works of art), thereby allowing the PD-Art usage per Wikipedia [18]. In any case "purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright" as per the same page, and that definition should legitimately apply to un-creative photos of old manuscripts. PHG (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DemurgerCroisadesEtCroises.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DemurgerCroisadesEtCroises.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hi PHG, I know it must seem like everyone is ganging up on you lately, and I apologize if my own words have been too harsh. I'm sure it's now impossible to go back to a point where we can all cooperate on writing a good article. However, I would still like to voice my concerns. I realise that Wikipedia was founded as an encyclopedia to be edited by everyone, not just "experts", but I think Wikipedia, and your articles on the Mongols in particular, have progressed far beyond that simple motto. Some time ago you said that you are not an historian, and I made some sarcastic remark that this was very obvious, for which I also apologize, but this is in fact the heart of the problem. History is one of those subjects that everyone thinks they can understand. It's as easy as reading a few books, right? No problem. Certainly for many subjects, anyone can read a book and have a basic understanding of some historical subject. When someone wants to learn more they can read further and more deeply, and I encourage that! But history is an academic discipline, and sometimes, a lot of specialised training is involved in it. I think people often forget that. It seems that you have passed the point of being a keen amateur, which is great, but now you are, well, stuck in the woods without the right equipment, I suppose is a good analogy.
I'm sure this will sound like I am claiming expert authority over you, and since this is Wikipedia, you are free to ignore me. But among the latest round of attacks, John Kenney and I (although I do not speak for John, these are just my thoughts), and probably others, are actually trained as historians. Wouldn't it be better to listen to our advice? You have probably read more than any of us about the Mongols and the crusaders, but it is easy to recognize where you have gone astray. If you were a student of mine it would be simple to point you in the right direction and show you how to make sense of all these books without getting confused. You could be publishing articles in academic journals or writing your own books, if your research skills were properly honed; unfortunately I can't do that here.
I also disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but I assume this comes down to everyone digging into their positions and being unwilling to cooperate. That is a subject for another time. I will leave you with this - please, for your own sake, for our sake, and for the good of Wikipedia, let us help you write proper historical articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is precisely my point - where you feel you have "legitimacy", I feel that you simply have an overwhelming amount of information and you don't know what to do with it. I don't think reputation really enters into it; this leads to line of thinking that someone has published a book and therefore we must include material from it. Wikipedia's policy refers to significant views, certainly, but this is something else entirely; a significant view does not mean the view of everyone who has ever written a book about a subject. If we wish to follow Wikipedia policy, I think we must also take into account What Wikipedia is not - that is, an indiscriminate collection of information. Since you don't have any training in history, you don't have that discriminatory eye towards sources. As a result, we have quite a mess of sources and references, which is hardly an appropriate way to write both history and Wikipedia articles. So what can we do about this? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so at all; maybe Demurger is not as reputable as you think, or at least in this specific case he is not, which, as I've said, would be easy to recognize if you had a better sense of history and history-writing. This is not just about Bohemond, it's about the whole prospect of you writing an article about a Franco-Mongol alliance. We are, then, talking about every random fact you have come across, which may or may not be accurate, but which must be included because of a misguided attempt to follow Wikipedia policy. If this is Wikipedia policy, then it is negotiable, and it should likely be rejected for a policy that makes more sense. It is the very root of the problems with these Mongol alliance articles, and perhaps all of Wikipedia's problems in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how is anyone supposed to understand what is relevant and accurate when you yourself, the author, don't even know? Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to put forth irrelevant and false information throughout the Internet? Of course not. It is a ridiculous policy if that is how it must be interpreted. I have no problem with amateurs writing articles on Wikipedia, but when an amateur has stepped far past his limitations, we have to do something about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ConstantineCoin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:AchaeusCoin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:MilitaryAviation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:KikkaChryslerReport.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:HermaiosMithra.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:HermaiosZeusMithra.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Its a bit belated as you have over 40 ... it seems a long time since Tillia Tepe and so many articles. Keep up the good work, PHG! --Victuallers (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LysiasGB.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LysiasGB.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
You and any who deal with Elonka may wish to be made aware of some of her history here, such as this drawn out ArbCom hearing. As the evidence showed, she has a history of ignoring consensus, continuing disruptive discussions in the name of debate, and wrangling support any way she can. This case was, more than anything, what caused me to bow out from Wikipedia for most of last year, with the unfortunate result that I could not bring it up in opposition to her adminship. I hope this in some way helps. Now watch, I suspect I'll be blocked imminently. --BlueSquadronRaven10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before I believe (User:PHG/Elonka). It is not an acceptable use of userspace to provide a one sided critique of other editors. User:PHG#Disputes is not acceptable. Are you willing for other editors to provide the other side of that story in that section? If not, I ask you to remove it. Your conduct towards Elonka recently is becoming a cause for concern. Despite the fact that she hasn't edited much recently and doesn't seem to have been involved in the Franco-Mongol alliance article, you have continued to pursue her, including a totally baseless harassment claim at WP:ANI that unsurprisingly drew little response [19]. Please remove the problematic section from your userpage or it may be time for Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee to review this matter. The more I see of your editing here, the more I think it requires closer scrutiny in future. WjBscribe23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WjBscribe. As a faithfull supporter of Elonka (here), you don't seem to be a very impartial judge either. I dispute your interpretations of things, and Elonka is actually multiplying attacks against me on various User Pages (here or here). I am essentially acting in self-defense, but fine, I cropped the text from my User Page: PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now, I guess the story now has right of place on my user page. Things started back in August 2007 when I began to study the area of the Franco-Mongol alliance, creating the article and most of its content. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history. I do like this kind of obscure, but totally fascinating, instances of cultural interaction (see also Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga etc...).
The subject seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (here or here for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).
What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia! PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello PHG! I do not think that there is any rule in place. When working on some articles, I have noticed that there can be a multiplicity of ways of writing dates, and in many articles are not consistent, with different editors using different formats. For example, in the same article we might find September 24, 1877 in one place 24 September1877 in another, or even on occasion Sept 241877 and 1877, Sept 24. Using the date template 1877-09-24, the date should be displayed in whatever format you prefer based on your individual settings under “preferences”. I also feel that this method has the advantages of fewer keystrokes and chances for misspelling.--MChew (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PHG. I hope you're well. I was looking at the history of the article Shakya. In this edit you gave the Pāli name as "Śaka". However, a) Wikipedia says that there is no ś sound in Pāli; and b) the DDB gives "Sākiya" as the Pāli equivalent [20] (log-in with "guest" as username and pw). Can you clarify this?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?)19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nat! Nice to hear from you! I do not remember where I got the Śaka spelling. Please edit to your best judgement! Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've taken so long to reply. I'm working on it, but that text is a real mess. There's a lot of passages I can't make head or tail of so far. But I'll keep working and maybe I can get those figured out. But in the meantime, do you by any chance have an image of the manuscript itself? Because some this stuff is so weird that it almost has to result from transcription errors. --Iustinus (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to point out that the historical term "ancient" is used to denote the period prior to 476 A.D. There are no ancient sources for the period about which you are writing, only medieval and modern ones. Perhaps you could amend the reference lists on your various articles to reflect this fact? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PHG: I just now found your question about the coin of Ghazan Mahmud at Talk:Mahmud Ghazan. The mint is not Tabriz but Bāzār. Bāzār indicates not a city but the mint traveling in the retinue of the Ilkhan. The year is AH 701 (AD 1301-1302). Note the faint Arabic "Allah" between the Phagspa characters of the reverse. It is a lovely coin, redolent of the cultural exchanges that so interest you. Please resist the urge to pinpoint exactly where it was coined. Best regards, Aramgar (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the great info! Would you be able to confirm the exact legend? Is it:
ﻢﻠﺳﻭ ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﻰﻠﺻ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻝﻮﺳﺭ ﺪﻤﺤﻣ ﻪﻠﻟﺍﻻﺍﻪﻟﺍﻻ/ ﺰﻳﺮﺒﺗ ﺏﺮﺿ/ ... ﻊﺒﺳ ﺔﻨﺳ ﻰﻓ Lailahe illallah Muhammed resulullah salli aleyhe. Duribe Bāzār fi sene 701
If so, would you have the capability to fill-in the arabic as well? Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typing in Arabic is a rather cumbersome process on the computers I use. For the sake of time please allow me to use Latin script. Obverse field: Allāh / lā ilāh illā / (darb bāzār) / Muhammud / rasūl Allāh. Obverse margin within the frame: sallā (3:00) / Allāh (12:00) / ‘alayhi (9:00). Obverse margin outside the frame: sana (4:00), ahad (1:00), sab’am… (11:00-8:00).
The kalima of the field is standard on most Islamic coins. The mint is written in small letters above the big Muhammad. sallā Allāh ‘alayhi means “God bless him”; the Allāh is used twice, once in the kalima and once in this phrase. The date is annoyingly abbreviated.
The Arabic on the reverse is limited to the large Ghāzān Mahmūd of the third line down, the tiny Allāh between Phagspa characters I mentioned yesterday, and the date, I think, written again on the right side. The rest is Uighur.
Thanks for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, it looks like you're engaged in an edit war regarding the wording of the first sentence of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Consensus on the talk page does seem to be that Elonka's version is the sentence is the accepted one, with many users supporting it and few or no users supporting your change. I am aware of the previous mediation that took place between you two back in September 2007 to settle the issue, but that doesn't set the lead sentence in stone; consensus by a broad group of editors can override it, especially since it is months later. As I'm sure you know, consensus is the foundation of editorial decision making and your continued repudiation of the consensus is bordering on ownership of the article. I urge you, for your sake, to reconsider your repeated rewriting of the introductory sentence and attempt to gain consensus for your change on the talk page prior to reverting again. Cheers! Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Per Honor et Gloria. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(cross-posted from User talk:Ioeth) Still, previous mediation doesn't trump current talk page consensus, which was only between you and Elonka. Saying that the above version is the one that should be in the article seems to be ignoring other users' input on the talk page, since it looks like consensus is not with that version. Furthermore, your latest article creations seem to have come under much scrutiny from the community, and I would encourage you not to create any more forks before consensus is reached at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Given around a half-dozen of your latest contributions are up for AFD, it's pretty obvious that these "executive decisions" that you have been making are becoming increasingly disruptive. You have had a long history of quality contributions to Wikipedia, and I hate to see that fact becoming more and more overshadowed by the current situation. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dustihowe Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
No, not great work on "Mamluk-Mongol alliance", it's just another POV fork that PHG has created, to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. We keep telling him to stop, and then he goes and makes another couple POV forks, and pours biased information into them. The articles look well-written and well-sourced, but he's just copy/pasting in a lot of information from Franco-Mongol alliance, as well as a long list of sources, which in actuality usually have little or nothing to do with the topic of the new article. This is an ongoing campaign by PHG, to create articles which promote the POV that there was an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. Articles that he created, which are probably going to have to be deleted or extensively rewritten:
An editor has nominated Kutlushah, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kutlushah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PHG, I see the bot has already notified you about the AfDs, but I thought I ought to write a note to you myself. I realize you believe "no big deal to keep track of one article and 4 subpages," but it seems to me that splitting them before a consensus has been reached is premature, for the reasons I mentioned before. I find it much harder to weigh the facts and follow the discussions when they are spread out over a series of pages. I know you've done a lot of hard work on this, but perhaps you could slow down a bit and work with us other editors more? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka's reduction of the Alliance article from 200K to a mere 80K is massive removal of sourced material and is a serious violation and requires serious action. What do you suggest? --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to report this to the ANI as soon as possible. Its clear she wont back down. This is a small step by the way, I had meant for a bigger step, but this should be done first. Replacing an article and deleting sourced material like this is simply bullying. Since I've had past disputes with her, my comments might not be taken in a fair light so I advise you. Please dont buckle under all this coercing from her and her friends (Shell, WJB and others). Do what it talks to get justice. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful Matt57. I know you have disagreements with Elonka, but in this situation there have been long discussions about using Wikipedia to publish original research, and misrepresenting what the sources say. Make sure to fully familiarize yourself with the history. I want everyone to understand that users should not view Wikipedia as a platform for publishing their novel interpretations of scholarly subjects. An example case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. JehochmanTalk16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll withdraw myself from this alliance affair. What you guys come up in the end with must be ok. I dont want to dive into 200K of Alliance material. If misrepresnting sources is whats being done here, this is a serious claim and PHG should do all it takes it prove this allegation false, if thats the case. If its found he's done this, then whatever justice comes up with should be ok. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, splitting the stuff into various topics has made the dispute 10 times more inflamed and has attracted other people who are now siding unfairly with the parties without knowing what the thing is about. You should'nt have done this. I thikn everything should be merged back to the main article. Take strong action against Elonka's pushing her own version of the article into the main article. Take this to mediation, do whatever it takes to get the article back. This is bullying of the highest kind. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These same close knitted friends of Elonka have gotten me banned in the past for doing the right thing. I know though one day justice will bite this bunch back. For now I want to be able to continue editing Islam articles so I apologize I'll have to withdraw from this one. Due to my past disputes also what happens is when they see me and Elonka in a dispute they rush to her defense and agree with her whatever she is doing and threaten me profusely. I think my presence thus makes things worse. --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PHG. I'm sorry this dispute is becoming so acrimonious again. However, I would like to mention that there is no need to get upset over the removal of sources and references. Sometimes, they just aren't necessary. If there are 8 sources that say the same thing, it is unnecessary to mention all 8. If there is a 9th that says something different, it's probably not even necessary to mention it at all. Part of the purpose of writing history is to be clear and concise - there is no need to make a note of every single thing that has ever been published about a particular piece of information. Do you think Jean Richard or Alain Demurger would do that? Their books would be tens of thousand of pages long if they did. I'm saying this as a student of history, which I know means nothing to you, and I can already imagine your reply, but I wanted to say it anyway. So, calm down, take a deep breath, don't worry - we are actually trying to make the articles better. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, isn't this wiki-lawyering getting kind of silly? You come in every day, at about 6 a.m. GMT, and revert to your old version. This has been going on for days now:
Please stop, and work with other editors, instead of against them? There's obviously consensus for the rewrite, and multiple editors have either reverted you, or moved on with editing the new version of the article, which makes it pretty clear that they're in support of the rewrite. Further, when you're reverting, you're not just choosing a different version, you're also wiping out many edits that have been put in place after talkpage discussions here. It should be obvious that no one here is going to say, "Oh, I guess PHG is right, let's just go back to his version and let him control the article." Your reverts have now been reverted by three different editors.[21][22][23]
An editor has nominated Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[4]](http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/299/atemzv7.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:MuseeGuimetCaption.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:History of Japan. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. John Smith's 15:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AsukaBodhisattva.JPG){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
){kind=link}
