Hi Wikiuser1314, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser1314. Do you realize that the attached map is wrong, in that it places the ANE just a few kilometers east of Moscow, and the Nganasans just above them? The map also contradicts the text of the article it is extracted from, since the author clearly states that the ANEs were around Lake Baikal (of course): the map, in its eastern part, is very obviously the result of artistic license. AFAIK, nothing prohibits us on Wikipedia from creating our own maps based on reliable sources and geographical accuracy, either by drawing them from scratch, or by using the help of Creative Commons material, which indeed is the case of this map. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 10:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @पाटलिपुत्र: I am aware that the published map is not accurate either. But the map you made has specific errors too, which should be corrected before it is shown in Wikipedia articles. The blonde hair genes were first found among the Afontova Gora 3 sample (c. 17-18 kya) , which is significantly younger than ANE Malta (c. 24 kya) and further West (Afontova Gora = Southern Siberia, Northwest of the Altai mountains). I could imagine that you adjust the map accordingly; something like showing AG3 as descended group from ANE (Malta), and that among this (AG3) population, the gene allele originated (or was detected), and subsequently spreaded westwards through the EHG etc. to make this more clear. - In regards with biomedical topics related to humans (such as phenotypes), we should be especially careful. I would actually prefer to remove it completely, but it is sourced and others have probably a different view on that. Anyway, thank you for your many recent helpful edits. If you could adjust your new map in regards to the mentioned points, I will accept the inclusion of this one. Thank you again.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a geographically accurate rendition of the source article (when you click on the map, you might have to refresh your file cache to see it, or click on the last version on Commons). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: thanks, one, purely optical suggestion is to colour the arrow going westwards to the EHG (and perhaps following arrows from the EHG) in the more yellowish colour, such as the color of the AG circle, to differentiate them and the spread of the gene from other ANE like geneflow (arrows to Nganasans and Native Americans). (If these changes are technically possible.) I must apologize for the hastily reverts, I should have simply pointed these things out first.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the arrow color is a good idea, it improves clarity. Feel free to restore this more accurate map to the articles. Thanks पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Yes, I will restore the map in the respective articles.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic position of ancient Upper Paleolithic Eurasian specimens.
Hi Wikiuser1314! In case you're interested, I've created a clickable version of your phylogenetic tree: just use teh code {{Phylogenetic tree for ancient Eurasians}} (you don't have to use it if you don't like it!) Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you, it's a great idea.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser1314, thank you very much for following through and creating East-Eurasian, I think that helps resolve the issues we were facing over at Genetic history of East Asians. I think you've made a great start to the article. I have made a few changes to your article, hope that's ok with you. Saouirse (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I left a message for you on the Ancient East Eurasians talk page. I tried to "@" you but it didn't work for some reason (maybe I didn't do it properly), so I thought I'd let you know here. Saouirse (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser1314. I have the impression that this image is non-free ("non commercial": "Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC)"). If so, we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Please confirm. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 05:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @पाटलिपुत्र:, as far as I can tell, the picture/paper is "open access":
Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.
It seems to be correct that it is "noncommercial". I was of the impression that we can use it on Wikipedia, as we do not use it for commercial advantages and the authors are cited. But for the case to have been wrong, feel free to remove it (I may do it later myself, but have less time this week). Thanks for the information. ;) —Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "non commercial" is not accepted, as Wikipedia content must be reusable on all platforms, including commercial ones... ("Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only licenses (like CC BY-NC-SA) are not accepted either." [1]). With your agreement above, I will have the file removed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 06:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र:, I just got aware that this PCA is too "non-commercial": [2], as it is from the same paper. Therefore not accepted either. It should probably be deleted as well.-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the PCA for every case.-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the paper is not outdated in any way, but rather she refers to some findings during the time of which this review was written and published - which are for understandable reasons not included in her review. This is generally referring to Eurasia, not South or East Asia specifically. There is also another 2023 review including Melinda Yang, which has some additional points, but do not make the previous review redundant. The 2023 review (html or pdf version):[3]. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Austronesier:, thanks for your comment regarding the phylogenetic tree of West Eurasians. I agree, this one is a bit more tricky because of the several admixture events, including Basal, East and internal ones. I am not exactly sure how to handle it. I could implement admixture notes/arrows as done on the UP_Siberian (ANE) branch. As for the affinity between WHG (Villabruna) and Anatolian HGs, is it not because of WHG-like geneflow into Anatolian HGs, as pointed out in this 2022[4] paper (Figure 3)? As far as I can tell, there is sadly currently no published paper showing a phylogenetic tree with all relevant lineages. The only exception I am aware of would be ME Allentoft et al. (2022 pre-print) [5]; Extended Data Fig. 5. But this one is not useable until published - and even than quite hard to recreate in the currently used form. Do you have any suggestions for improving this tree? Regards- Wikiuser1314 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think time is simply not ripe yet for a broad-sweep diagram at the current state of research. It would be good to see the Allentoft-preprint finally published (isn't it ironic that there already two stuck preprints out there that have a Paleolithic specimen from the Caucasus as a pivotal contributor of W. Eurasian lineages?). But even then we should have a number of sources that confirm its rough outline of the ancestral connection between the various West Eurasian lineages. Some aspects are well-supported by multiple sources (like the Basal ingression in West Asia, or EHG as the result of ANE-WHG admixture), but the relations at the deepest level are still quite a riddle, like the exact relation of the West Eurasian-derived components in ANE and CHG (and, for that matter, also Anatolian HGs and Natufians).
As for the potential affililations of the Villabruna cluster, Fu et al. (2016) found that the non-Basal component of CHG is more closely related to the Villabruna cluster than to Early Upper Palaeolithic Europeans (including Kostenki14 and Vestonice16); Villalba-Mouca (2023) also cite earlier research when they write: "Villabruna-like ancestry was also detected in the non-basal Eurasian part of the ancestry of Anatolian HG and Natufians, which suggested bidirectionality, that is a contribution of Villabruna-like ancestry to ancient Near Easterners before ~15 cal kyr BP." So there is a developing consensus that the non-basal Eurasian part of all three known ancient West Asian lingeages is most closely linked to the Villabruna cluster.
In any case, even if clearer picture emerges in the near future, I doubt that we will be able to capture it in a plain cladistic diagram. –Austronesier (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Yep its a bit annoying that these two papers are stuck in pre-print status. Yet, I have at least a positive feeling that Allentoft et al. will be published one day, afterall it is a huge amount of data which seemingly needs some time. Regarding "but the relations at the deepest level are still quite a riddle, like the exact relation of the West Eurasian-derived components in ANE and CHG (and, for that matter, also Anatolian HGs and Natufians).", I totally agree. My take on may be too simplistic here and these deep clades with regard to ANE, CHG but also the Paleolithic European specimens are not that clear yet. I will need to have more patience on yet not clear topics. - If Allentoft et al. gets published, we may just use that graphic (if it is under common use) as possible phylogenetic structure. –Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talkign about preprints, this one[6] has amazing data (just in case you haven't seen it). It's a pity that the "Forest-steppe hunter-gatherer" ancestry only plays a secondary role in this paper, and it is quite upsetting that like with "Southern Arc"-paper, they haven't consulted linguists for their speculations about linguistic homelands and expansions. But still, very worth reading (and waiting for its publication). Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes this is indeed an interesting paper. Hopefully it will not take too long to be published. Here is another quite similar paper from October[7]. I hope there will be more cooperation between geneticists and linguists on such questions. Anyway still interesting. Cheers!–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an edit request with the exact changes you want to make on the talk page of Turkic peoples, and with reliable references. Thanks.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser 1314! Just a thought... regarding [8], do we really have to wait for the final publication of a paper to mention it? For example we have: Per WP:RS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I mean, of course it is preferable to have already published/ peer-reviewed sources, but if the paper is from a recognized specialist, doesn't it mean that we can use it anyway, until we can update it once it is officially published? Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi पाटलिपुत्र! I am not sure, but we may do so. Its a bit a grey-zone I guess. If you think we should include it, I will restore it later. If so, we should also add more on the context of this paper's findings, but I will need to read it again before. Your thougts?-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, if the content of the paper is reasonnable (not "revolutionary"), and if the authors are reliable, it should be quite fine. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to reinclude it, but there seem to be some problems. The given figure of haplogroups does not fit the text-based statements of the papers findings, so I removed the numbers until this gets more clear/corrected. I also added context based on the authors statement regarding the spread of Uralic. If you want, you can try to further improve the section/read the pre-print. Another relevant one may be this one[9]. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following our "exchange"[10][11], I should clarify that I am aware of the above-cited passage in WP:SPS. But consideration of due weight based on reflection in secondary sources is still just as important, all the more so with non (or yet) peer-reviewed sources. Even peer-reviewed papers are better avoided until secondary sources have cited them and evaluated their merits. –Austronesier (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I agree with your view. Thanks for your clarification. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser1314, I have removed the illustrations from Kusuma et al. at various places. In some articles, it was only peripherically related (such as Aboriginal Australians). Also, their results are quite surprising, so we should wait for at least some mentions in other sources before giving them undue/premature prominence here in Wikipedia. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your quest for the "big picture", but sometimes you should pause for a second and look at things from a WP:DUE perspective (is the source cited by others; is it of primary relevance to the article.. etc.?). Austronesier (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no problem, I added it there (Aboriginal and Indigenous Australians) because they were mentioned in the description of the illustration, but have no objection to its removal there. I think it is relevant for Peopling of Southeast Asia and corroborates previous findings, such as Carlhoff et al. 2021 regarding the initial Australasian wave, followed by Tianyuan/Onge like geneflow, and subsequently MESA (Austroasiatic-like) and TWN Austronesian-like waves. The only new thing is the Punan-lineage and its makeup, which may need clarification.
To investigate this, we draw on the recently reported pre-Holocene aDNA sample from Leang Panninge5 (South Sulawesi), which shows composite Papuan/ancient Asian-related (Tianyuan/Onge) ancestry. We observe a tentative signal of shared ancestry between the Punan Batu and Leang Panninge using D-statistics (Figure 4A), which resolves as a weak admixture node in our qpGraphs (Figure 4B; ∼1% supported in best-fitting graph, with 0%–2.1% confidence interval). Given the limited nature of this signal, we sought to confirm it using TreeMix (Figure 4C) and again detected a weak connection between the Punan Batu and the Leang Panninge sample.
Figure 4:Figure 4. Formal admixture tests involving ancient Leang Panninge data
But I agree its important to keep WP:DUE in the mind.
Figure 5. Schematic summary of a proposed population settlement in the region is a quite good illustrations of what we know so far. But if you think its still too early to included it into the overview article Peopling of Southeast Asia I won't object either. :)
Btw. this 2022 review paper is also quite usefull for SEA/Oceania:[1]
It also mentiones the findings of Carlhoff et al. which were further corroborated by Kusuma et al.:
In 2021, the first Wallacean paleogenome was published from an ~8000-year-old female from Leang Panninge in southern Sulawesi, which notably predates the arrival of Austronesian seafarers to this region. Ancestry decomposition and f-statistic analyses showed that the Leang Panninge specimen has two distinct genetic ancestries, with one component that is genetically equidistant to both modern Indigenous Australians and Papuans, and another that is genetically closer to ancient East Asian and modern Andamanese (Onge) populations. Admixture graph models suggest that the Australo-Papuan-like component may reflect the genetic profile of the initial AMH migrants to ISEA, with subsequent mixing with an unknown Asian lineage resulting in the Leang Panninge specimen’s distinctive dual ancestry.
Anyway, thanks for your explanation and view. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have long planned to work on Peopling_of_Southeast_Asia#Genetics and also Ancient Southern East Asian (thanks btw for creating the article!), but I just don't have the leisure for it these days. Yes, the review article by Taufik et al. is a good starting point for putting the Toalean individual from Leang Panninge into the big picture.
I am always a bit skeptcial about using diagrams from published articles as they tend to emphasize the novel findings of the study (here: (B) Punan Batu as a basal cSEA lineage). When people not familiar with the topic see the diagram, they cannot distinguish between what is established consensus (C, the MSEA vs. Austronesian part of B, and also slowly, A) and what is still fresh and not yet confirmed by others in the field. But sure, it won't hurt to put the Punan Batu-thing into the prose, without the visual prominence, and with proper in-text attribution etc. I'll be happy to include it when I start to update the two above-mentioned articles, and also Genetic_history_of_East_Asians#Southeast_Asians which in its current shape gives me a shudder, with its focus to peripheral things and especially the term "South Eurasians". Maybe you can do a quick fix, if I don't manage to revise it soon. –Austronesier (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ture that, I sometimes forget that all these things and terms may be quite a bit confusing for people not familiar with the topic. I will look at Genetic_history_of_East_Asians#Southeast_Asians, I think the whole article needs some work. I am also not sure what to do with the "genetic sections" of various ethnic groups which often also have an own article or an own section in their respective main article. Maybe it should all be shortened with "Genetic history of East Asians" be primarily centered on the overall genetic history, while information on specific groups be secondary (and linked to their respective article or sections, which likely also need cleanup.). Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have taken shot at a revised version of Ancient Southern East Asian. You might want to have a look: User:Austronesier/sandbox5. Feel free to comment in the talk page of the sandbox page. I have made use of most of the sources in your version, but I have taken out all speculations in Larena et al. about migration dates into the Philippines. Their gross error is to equate split dates with the time of arrival in the Philippines. E.g. while a 11kya split time for AA and AN related ancestries seems plausible (at least for the ASEA part in the AA-like ancestry), it is unlikely that the first distinctly AA-like people instantly hopped to the Philippines. For all we know, they took a long journey via MSEA and western Indonesia before they arrived in southern Philippines. I have also taken out Gakuhari et al. I know it was meant to set an implicit upper bound for the ASEA-ANEA split, but the authors don't draw this conclusion.
I've tried as much as possible to extract the current consensus narrative from secondary sources, which also means I will not include the Punan Batu paper (at least in this article). –Austronesier (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arent the new images added by you here are copyrighted? You seem to have taken a copied it from the papers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, Yelmen, Tagore and Das et al. are CC BY 4:
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
while Narasimhan 2019 is Copyright 2019 Science Journals Default license. I am not sure if we can use that one, thus I changed these graphics. See:<ref>https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7487Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
If it is useable, just ignore my changes. Any thoughts? Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image wasn't flagged for copyvio, but I'll make an 'own version' of it to stay on the safe side. The Narsimhan 2018/19 graph provides a nice overview of the South Asian genetics without being overly complicated and jargon-nish for WP:READERS. After all this research forms the basis of the newer ones. Hence I'll keep it. This one for example can be added here since it is detailed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. :) Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikiuser1314! Regarding your great map of the Scythians/Sakas, are you sure that the western Scythians should be represented as 100% WSH? This article seems to claim that they also had a significant Saka component: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219307122 . Apparently, there is also something similar going on with the Sauromatians and Sarmatians. I started this article Filippovka kurgans, characteristic of the final-Sauromatian and early-Sarmantian, and it seems the deceased where essentially similar to Central Asian Sakas (see "Anthropology")... Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 21:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @पाटलिपुत्र:, thanks for your comment, I will look at this and edit the different groups or add subgroups if neccessary. The "Scythian" chart at the far left should represent "Hungarian Scythians" which lacked the eastern "Altaian" component.
Overall, both methods provided similar (Pearson r2 > 0.9; p < 0.01) results (Figure 3), highlighting an increase in eastern—Altaian—ancestry in Scythians and Sarmatians (except the Hungarian Scythians that behave as outliers) compared to populations predating them.
I will review it and distinguish Hungarian Scythians and the ones in Ukraine (eg. an own chart for them). Thanks again! Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I am not sure if "Hungarian Scythians" can be considered as "core" representative Western Scythians in your synthetic map (their history is confused and uncertain, although they are supposed to have migrated from Scythian core areas around the Black Sea). On the contrary Ukrainian Scythians surely could be considered as "core" and representative. In addition, lack of eastern ancestry for Hungarian Scythians only appears as an "outlier" phenomenon in their single sub-group, and only in one analytical method (CP/NNLS), whereas the other method (QpAdm) does show eastern Saka admixture like all other Scythian groups. Given the contradictory information and outlier status of the "Hungary Scythians", maybe the best solution would be to leave them out of your global synthetic map, and replace them with the Ukrainian Scythians group instead... The resulting map would be more consistent with the modern consensus towards a general east>west cultural and migratory flux during the Scythian period ("This is compatible with a moderate westward increase of the Altaian genetic component in the Steppe during the Scythian period, implying the involvement of at least some degree of migration (east to west; the more complicated scenarios that have been proposed [11] are not supported by our results) in the spread of the Scythian culture. This fits the previous observation that the Iron Age nomads of the western Eurasian Steppe were not direct descendants of the Bronze Age population"[12]). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 08:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @पाटलिपुत्र: I have just updated the map :) ...althought I have left in the Hungarian ones as I just saw your recent comment now. If you think we should remove them completely, than I can cut them out. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this pie chart map based on actual percentages found in research papers or own work based on third-party calculators? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fylindfotberserk: It was based on the results of several papers, such as Jeong et al. (2020) or Järve et al. 2021. As they all used different proxies (E Altaian, Baikal EBA, Khövsgöl, etc.) I extracted the different percentages in excel and compared them with the makeup of the used proxies (eg. papers data on ANA, Baikal EBA, Khövsgöl, etc. see the ones in Ancient Northeast Asian). Based on that I calculated the ANA component percentages. For verification I modeled the average samples with G25 Vahaduo to compare the calculated results, which largely fitted (+/- 1-2%). In this regard, they are based on the papers, but synthetic. If this is a problem, I can adapt the map to present the results of Järve et al. 2021 solely, as this paper has quite a good summary on the different samples. See Figure 3. Inferred Ancestry Proportions in Scythian and Sarmatian Groups and Groups Pre- and Postdating Them. This may actually be a better solution than the synthetic one. Thoughts?–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adapting it per the Järve et al. 2021 paper or whichever is the most comprehensive. Using personal models, findings from multiple papers, proxies and third-party calc are text book examples of WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, than I will do so. :) @पाटलिपुत्र: do you agree with using Järve et al., or do you have suggestions for another paper? Thanks.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Järve et al. 2021 sounds like a good basis (and I don't known of a better one). As to Hungarian Scythians, because of their contradictory data (CP/NNLS shows no Eastern ancestry, but QpAdm does) and outlier status, I think we should probably leave them out of the simplified presentation... except if someone has a better idea... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 09:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be better to remove the Khosvgols and Slab-grave, as, at first sight, it could give the impression that they belong to the Scythian/Saka group... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 09:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it based on this chart? IF yes then qpAdm or Cp/NNLS? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, I took the Cp/NNLS part, as Yamnaya/Srubnaya is generally lacking Eastern components, which is closer to the Cp/NNLS. Do you think using the other is better?-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with using CP/NNLS. But I see some discrepancy, especially that the EHG component is being over represented. For example here,
'Srubnaya' gets a little bit more than the "0.6" marker on the scale between 0.6 and 0.8, not even close to the mid position of it (which would represent 70%), but around 62.5%. In you map, it is close to 70%.
The Yamnaya one in your map is 75%, but here the ones lablled as Yamnaya and Yamnaya_Kalmykia are at 67.5%, the Yamnaya_Samara and Yamnaya_Ukraine are in the mid point of the 0.6 and 0.8 scale, ergo - 70%.
Tian Shan Saka is around 42.5% EHG here, but in your map it is around 55% EHG.
Central Saka is 30% EHG, 17.5% Natufian and 57.5% Atlaian. In your map the Natufian is too less and the other values are a bit more.
The Scy_Kaz is around 32.5% EHG here, but Kazakhstan Saka (id same as Scy_Kaz) is a whooping 55% EHG.
The Scythian_East is around 25% EHG, 10% Natufian and 65% Altaian here, but your map shows around 30% EHG, 5% Natufian.
The Scy_Ukr is around 50% EHG, 47.5% Natufian and 2.5% Alataian here, in you map EHG is close to 70%, Natufian has been severely nerfed and Altains seems a few percents more. There are similar discrepancies in others also. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmhh, I will look at it again. Thanks for bringing this up. I will use your percentages.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! (maybe it would be better to remove the Yamnaya/Srubnaya window for the sake of clarity, but otherwise it's very good). Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mapmaker's Barnstar
Thank you for your great work in transforming complex data into easy to understand maps and graphics! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: Thank you! :) - I have removed the window as per your suggestion. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the caption in this and similar edits in other pages. The caption reads "combining Sintashta_MLBA, Ganj_Dareh_N, and Shamanka_EN ancestries." referring this image. There should be some parity. It is obvious that Ganj_Dareh_N or Shamanka_EN like older pops wouldn't have mixed directly with the late bronze age Sintashta MLBA. Those would be more admixed contemporary groups like BMAC etc. Besides, the graph clearly shows various components of Sintashta. I know the writers should have been more clear on the components, especially the smaller ones, but I'd suggest following what the source material says "The three main ancestry components are shown in green, red and violet representing ancestry maximized in Anatolian farmers, Iranian farmers, and Hunter Gatherers from West Siberia, respectively". Also in the legends here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, I have adjusted the captions based on the rather limited description of the paper and also changed the legend (West Siberia N instead of EHG; which are not identical but on the same WHG-ANE cline). Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wikiuser1314, your edited phrase in Slab_Grave page about paternal lines is misleading. as of now, from eight male ascribed to Slab-Grave community, six male belong to Q haplogroup (1x Q-L330, 5x Q-M120) and two N. the CHN_Xianbei_IA mentioned in Lee et al 2023 is not considered as Slab_Grave. Chapter930 (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chapter930:, you seem to be right, thanks for the information; I have corrected the clades. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in my opinion we should not used 'own work' maps [13] used here since they are based on multiple researches with different admixture percentages hence venturing to WP:OR territory. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, you may be right, that is a bit problematic. I uploaded another version solely using Vallini et al. 2024 and its data, and removed the other population lineages (and admixture models) not discussed in that paper. Thank you! Regards -Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be lying if I said that I haven't been suspicious about you evading your block with yet another sock account. I've kept quiet because your editing from this account was all-in-all net positive, in good collaborative spirit and without any drama (although I don't know about LOUT-socking or potential other accounts).
Why don't you try to go for the WP:Standard offer from your very first account (if you still have access to it)? Sure, it entails a long period of restraint, and maybe other members of this community will have a different perspective (especially when considering your issues in the past). But I think it will be best if you try to actively regain the trust of the community instead of yet another time trying to stealthily get away with it. All the best. Austronesier (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Thank you very much, sadly my mistakes of the past are still hounting me. You are right, I have to face my past and try to restore and regain the trust of the community. I hope that my edits with this account speak for themself, I really tried to give my best. All the best to you as well. Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Hello Wikipedia community, I want to ask to apply for the WP:Standard offer and explain my case. I know that apologizing is too late now, but I am really sincerely sorry for my past mistakes. I have learned much, since I have created this account, and tried my best to make good and positive improvements. I tried to make a "silent" clean start. I think if not for my past mistakes, I did it quite good, yet I accept the way it has come (user:Ivanvector identified me via the original IP range that I started using again, and of course, the range of interests). It is time to face my past and to work to regain the trust of the community. I guess I will have to wait 6 months from now on and then request such a standard offer via mail or the WP:UTRS. My question in this regard is, can I please request this offer with this account user:Wikiuser1314? I do not have access to my first account user:Satoshi Kondo, which initially got blocked because (if I remember correctly) I stupidly created another account at that time user:일성강 and by user:Kumasojin 熊襲 simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being user:Vamlos). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started in a senseless socking-theatre, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side. My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since than, but especially since late 2022, and with this account, I learned a lot, not only here on Wikipedia, but in real life. I improved myself and started to understand and realize my serious mistakes. I became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. I felt relived here and elsewhere. In short, I got older and learned from my past, but this does not wash away my past mistakes. I do not want to justify my actions, I just want to explain how everything happened and speak about it. In the past, I was too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. But I really have changed now, I became more patient, I constructively edit based on citations and also try to give direct quotes for all of my edits to verify them, and I work together with fellow Wikipedians to improve articles (mainly related to archaeogenetic topics). Please take a look at my talk page and edits for that. I have not made any unconstructive or disruptive edits since the creation of this account, and always cooperated and worked together as team with others. I do not want to run away anymore. I know that I may not be able to express myself or my feelings here in a meaningfull way, but I hope the community will at least a bit understand my case. I do not want to get an excuse for my past, but to get a chance to continue my good-faith present/future. It may sound silly, but Wikipedia has become to a special place for me since at least this account. I am really very sorry. Family don't end with blood. I sincerely apologize to everyone here and elsewhere. I will wait the 6 months and follow any instructions I have to. I also offer to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself if it is necessary. Thank you. – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You are not eligible for the standard offer at this time. Additionally, you have been so massively abusive that you are considered banned by the community. No admin is free to unilaterally lift your block. If you ever become eligible for WP:SO, you'll need to follow WP:UNBAN for the community to consider lifting your ban. Yamla (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Yamla: thank you for your response. I am aware that I am not eligible now and accept the block/ban. I really want to rehabilitate myself and make a clean cut from my past "pre-Wikiuser1314" mistakes. In this regard, I apologise again to all fellow Wikipedians. I will follow the instructions of WP:SO and WP:UNBAN. I will not respond from this moment on until the 6 months have passed. Regards – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
