User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Menapii

added links pointing to Kessel and Waal

Tencteri

added links pointing to Kessel and Waal

Usipetes

added links pointing to Kessel and Waal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bavarians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• comes after the period when the neighbouring [[Alamanni]] and [[Thuringians]] had come under [[Frank]ish hegemony, and in Italy the kingdoms of Theoderic and Odoacer had come to and end,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of Philosophy

hello, Mr. Lancaster! Thank you for your interesting reply to my post. I have made a more concrete suggestion: "Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental and general questions (or problems), such as the nature of reality, existence, values, reason, mind, and language." I don't think the present definition is true; here are some other important philosophical topics: the nature of Truth, Justice, Beauty, Art, Dialectic, Method, Body, Space, Time, Human Nature, Emotion, Love,Sex, Virtue, Nothingness, Religion, God, Being, World, Literature, Interpretation, Government, History, Life, Logic, Computation, Madness, Thought, Falsehood, Death, Science, Appearance, Illusion, Dream, Goodness, etc. Arguably, you might reply, "all those problems are contained within the 7 categories mentioned." Perhaps, but I am not sure that is so, and a good definition of philosophy should be more broad and show that philosophy is concerned with the most fundamental and general questions, or problems, whatever they happen to be, and however the problems appear at some time, and is not uncontroversiallu carved up into just these 7 areas. It seems to me "a fallacy of misplaced concreteness" in its present form, as Whitehead would say. Any ideas on how we might change the definition to not indicate that there are exactly 7 philosophical topics? If we wanted to be concrete, it would be more appropriate to just reduce to 1. being (Ontology) 2. knowledge (epistemology) and 3. Value (Ethics) anyway, though I would also regard that as misleading. I think our definition should be open. World Champion Editor (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bavarians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank, Germanic and Lombard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Phronesis

I don't entirely follow either of your explanations for your edit as explained in the short edit summary, so if you are still keen to revert it, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation on the talk page. Thank you! 82.5.126.85 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

R1a-M458 and the Indo-European case

Dear user, as you have expressed the edit in concern requires a overview. The Ip is already blocked from editing for 1,5 days because of disruptive editing and edit warring with multiple Ip's. We need expert users on this. Do you know some users which can help us in the issue?

Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288)

--Gushtasp (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugii

I have reviewed the Lugii changes. I think the point was that there is no source for any suggestion as to what the language of the Lugii was. Moreover, the Wolfram comment is itself uncited. Finally, the controversy as to the Lugii's ethnicity seems to have continued to this day including between the German and Polish historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillqTaylor (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Common Sense article Comment

Hello Andrew, please discuss on talk: Definition needs explanation- misleading. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, I see your comments, I will reply in 1-2 weeks. I'm busy with other activities in the meantime. Thank you for responding.

A Question:did anyone think about renaming the article to "Philosophy of Common Sense" or something similar? (Not to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism) I think including the word Philosophy (or a variation) in the title would be more descriptive of the subject. CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, I replied to your previous comment in my talk page instead of your talk page, so I am not certain you notified. Here is a repeat. 10 Common sense Sorry for short communications so far. I have been travelling. I will use the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, no apologies needed, also please allow me 4-5 days to respond to your questions in the article talk page. (busy in the meantime) The edit summary box only allowed me to only enter short text notes, which can seem curt, so I thought it better to discuss on the talk page and get your views. Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, I will try to respond to your comments within 2 weeks. Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Gisburn Forest

"Fairly adjacent" is a bit like "fairly unique". Either it's adjacent or it's not. There is a useful map of Lancashire parishes at Civil parishes in Lancashire. J17 on the map is Gisburn. J18 is Gisburn Forest. They are not adjacent. In between is Bolton by Bowland (J5) and Paythorne (J31). (And 4 miles is quite a long way in England!)

I think someone must have included the population figures for Gisburn Forest in the Gisburn article assuming that Gisburn Forest was a forest in Gisburn. But it's not. it's an area that once belonged to Gisburn. There is no reason to include the pop figures for Bolton by Bowland and Paythorne (which are adjacent) in Gisburn, and no reason to include Gisburn Forest either.--Mhockey (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Menapii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd try

Interestingly I was blocked for promoting scientific evidence on Indo-European origins. I don't understand why exactly I was blocked but it seems it is a very touchy subject were newcomers are welcomed with hard manners. In short maybe I will be blocked again, so I have only short time to contact you. This version before was very well-written I think. What do you think? I would at least change "does not support" into "does not seem to support". Sincerly Gushtasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gushtasper (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kempen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of North Rhine-Westphalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Writing week Brussels

Wiki Loves Belgium

Dear Andrew Lancaster,

since you are a member of wikiproject Belgium, I thought you might be interested in the Writing week Brussels that is going on right now.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bohemia

added a link pointing to Pliny

Marcomanni

added a link pointing to Pliny

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

County of Loon

Andrew--

I'm not sure if this is going to work, as I've never done talk before. But here goes.

I didn't mean to imply that Ricfried was the only link, but I ran across him while researching the Counts of Chiny. I wanted the reader to be able to look at his information, as he had an interesting family.

I realize a lot of the information about Ricfried's children is speculative (see the Medieval Lands Project write-up on him), with lots of "so-and-so thinks this guy is the same as that guy" but it seems clear that he was an ancestor of Giselbert (through his son Nibelung) {although Giselbert's parentage is iffy) and that his son was Baldric, Bishop of Utrecht. (I don't know if this is what the House of Balderik is referring to in the write-up.

There is always speculation that these families are related to Reginar, and I speculated that Ricfried's daughter had married into the family.

The ancestry sites show some other relationships, but they tend to need further verification. Still working on it.

I'm guessing you're the author of the original article and, if so, nice job. Either way, feel free to fix it to reflect your views. Like I said, I just wanted to steer the reader to someone I thought they'd be interested in.

Gerry Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Grampinator (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heruli may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of [[Anastasius I (emperor)|Anastasius Caesar]]" sometime between June 29 and August 31, 512. (There is some debate possible about whether the Belgrade area is correct.<ref>Sarantis p.369</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quadi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tacitus (''Germania'' ([http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Quadi

added links pointing to Bavarian, Osi, Celtic, Alaric and Buri

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

African admixture - inaccuracies

Dear "Andrew Lancaster"

I made my views quite clear on this topic in the genuine belief that it depicts Portugal in an unfair and false way. I will not however dwell further into this as there are endless topics of more interest and value. I would like to prevent this user from communicating with me further, if possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Agilulf2007

As a linguist, I am more keen on exploring language-related topics and try and contribute towards Wikipedia as much as I can. I am not an expert on this platform and if inadvertently I don't always follow protocol, it is out of lack of knowledge as a user. It is a learning process which I am sure can only improve with practice. Just to say thank you for your intervention.

Best regards Melroross (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

MEDLANDS

Thanks. It is easy to get caught up in MEDLANDS, but as you noted, it is not always accurate. So I am trying to find other sources to verify facts. The sources on MEDLANDS are generally too obscure or not readily available (at least to me), but sometimes there's a gem. With all the alternate spellings names and places searches can be difficult, but I'm persevering. Occasionally, they'll be a good hit on Google Books or one of the other language Wikipedia sites. Gerry Anderson Dr. Grampinator (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herules, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alaric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

point of vieuw - Corswarem

can you have a look into Lords of Corswarem? please do not change whitout agreement, thanks,--Carolus (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent changes at "Tencteri" and "Usipetes"

You recently reverted my edits at those two pages but you missed to add sources. The current sources only say that the names of both tribes are of Celtic origin. Nothing is written there about Celtic personal names.--Proeliator (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Tencteri and Usipetes

Please see my note at Talk:Tencteri and Usipetes#am considering re-separating. Derek Andrews (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific method

Hi Andrew - Good call on adding Francis Bacon to the History section of the Scientific method article. I did a bit of copy editing to that paragraph (diff). Please check it to see if your intended meaning remains intact. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clovis and Alaric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Istvaeones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daci, Batavia and Batavi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salian Franks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

article: "Republic"

I have made small changes to first paragraph only. Please review. thanks. ---DHT863 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Counts of Hesbaye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dyle

County of Loon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Imperial Diet

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hesbaye, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kempen and Hainaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Count Rudolf, brother of Count Reginar II) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Count Rudolf, brother of Count Reginar II, Andrew Lancaster!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi. Do you think the article would be better suited at "Count Rudolf of Lower Lotharingia"?

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 23:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Lambert (nobleman of the Maasgau)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lambert (nobleman of the Maasgau), Andrew Lancaster!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If possible, kindly break the article in two or more sections. Thanks :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 00:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about Jewish influence on Western culture

The revision of mine which you attempted to undo was accurate, sourced, and clear, and while I can understanding that it might have appeared that I was removing or downplaying Jewish influence on the West, my intention (as a Jew and historian) was to clarify the demarcation between Christianity and Judaism, to make clear the historical antagonism of the West towards Jews, as well as indicate how Western civilization historical excluded Jews and Judaism. I agree that Jews and Judaism have had great impact on the West, and I added several new references to such influence, but the article as it was before seemed to lump Jews too much in with the West or Christianity, when historically that was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batanat (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavia (region), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lek and Waal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dug this up

The dead link currently be used on the page, I used Google and dug this up, it's in the Dutch original: [[1]]. I'm not entirely sure I will want to trust solely Google Translate on this (apparently?) contentious issue. Know anyone interested and neutral who speaks Dutch? I haven't edited genetics stuff in awhile. --Calthinus (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavia (region), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frankish and Gau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Belgae

Hello,

"this map is showing the Roman provinces, not the pre Roman situation described by Caesar" : you're wrong, File:Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S16_Gallien_CAESAR.png is showing the pre caesar war situation, as the others. Notice that the image I want to remove, and that you want to keep, File:Peuples_gaulois.jpg ([2]) is originally based on it (with armorica added). It has evolved since (see the historic) without any explanation from the different people who modified it, and became pretty absurd (for instance the south west zone is larger than it should, so is the yellow one ; as for the red zone it wasn't a distinct zone but was part of Narbonensis. You're right for the second remark, I did make a mistake with the caption (indeed orange corresponds to germanic tribes and not belgian ones ; and I also forget to remove "Armoricani (in purple)"). But I really don't think we should keep these two pictures, as they are totally unsourced (whereas File:Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S16_Gallien_CAESAR.png is from a book of Gustav Droysen). Moreover, the names of the tribes are French translations in the one supposed to present the Belgian tribes ! Elfast (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not against new maps, but these are not really great either. Can you post your proposals here first so we can check the captions and rationale? I do not quite understand your point about the first map. The new map was including Belgica Prima, the Treveri etc, as Belgae, but the Treviri were not pre Roman Belgae. I also do not understand your preference for Latin over French. Is there some sort of anti-French intention?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elfast: might have been better to have this discussion on the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no difference between Treveri and Treviri, what are you talking about ? The map does not include Belgica Prima but Gallia Belgica (neither does the other which does not include any frontier.

Gustav Droysen

Latin names of the tribes are the ones used in English (and French names aren't). For instance all the names you're using are Latin : Belgica Prima, Belgae and Treveri (in French we say Belges and Trévires ; note I'm saying "we" as I'm French myself, maybe you're suspecting me to hate myself). There's no sense in using French names (just as well as using Chinese names), as they're not the name used in English nor the original names of the tribes (maybe you don't know but French derives from Latin, and Gaulic tribes didn't speak French (but started talking latin after the Caesar conquest)).

The problem of source is a big problem in the two maps currently used. I tried to contact the contributors of the map in French fr:Discussion_Projet:Histoire#Deux_cartes_contradictoire_pour_la_frontière_entre_Gaule_Belgique_et_Gaule_Celtique. The creator of the other one admitted he can't give any source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png .

Elfast (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elfast:. Yes, the new map includes all of Roman-era Gallia Belgica, which means it includes the future (late Roman) Belgica prima with the civitas of the Treviri and so on. But, actually this was not part of the original Belgic lands described in the time of Caesar, and that is a difference between the two maps. A map showing PRE Roman Belgica should only show Gallia Secunda. My point about French is that it is find to prefer a map in English but if you are not a person who can make maps yourself then you should in my opinion be making sure the maps you pick at least show what the captions say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You're making a big mistake. See below for Roman era Belgica (from the same book, you can see that the map I want to use is extracted from this picture, bottom left corner). It has nothing to do :

Gustav Droysen

Elfast (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elfast:, if Droyson is being used to show the divisions of Gaul as reported by Caesar it is wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your sources ? Who said Johann Gustav Droysen books can't be used ?

Why would it be wrong ? I know there are different interpretation of the frontiers, and we can't be sure of any. But at least it is a sourced and worthy interpretation, not the one of a wikipedian user.

As I said before, you totally contradict yourself because one of the two maps I think are wrong and that you want to keep is principally based on it.... (see first version of it, the only differences being the adding of Armorica and the removing of Helvetes).

Elfast (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elfast:, the source for Caesar is Caesar himself, and all the secondary works about what he wrote. It is a fairly clear body of literature to refer to if you know this subject? My concern as mentioned is about the Treveri's part of Gaul being included in Gallia Belgica. What is your source for the Treveri being called Belgae by Caesar? I think Gallia Belgica came to include the Treveri during Roman times and maybe on this basis some secondary works wonder if Caesar was wrong not to call them Belgae, but Caesar did not call them Belgae and we have no other author from that time who disagrees with him. So it simplest to have a map which says "this is what Caesar reported" and we can discuss problems with Caesar in the text? By the way, why are we not having this discussion on the ARTICLE talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Caesar doesn't say they are Belgae, but he doesn't say they aren't neither (he does not say they are part of Celtic Gaul). The two interpretations (they were/they were not) are worthy, but need to be sourced. The map I propose is sourced by a worthy historian.

Anyway, one of the maps you're defending also considers Treveri as Belgae... Why do you consider that is it Ok for this (unsourced) map, but not for the (sourced) map I want to add ?

Elfast (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which map you are referring to with "one of the maps". But in any case your way of writing shows confusion about what the aim of the maps is. The question for both of the map changes you made was that the new maps no longer matched the captions. If a map says it represents what Caesar described then it needs to do that. And just changing the captions would not necessarily be an answer because the pictures were originally selected to show certain things, and the captions are an indication of that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the map with same colours and frontiers... the second one in the page ("according to Strabo"). I've already explained it. The map isn't based on Strabo statements but is based on the map by a German historian, with various modifications by different users who have not justified them nor have tried to base it on Strasbo statements (for the present version (I reverted some modifications), does he says Helvetii and Rauraci are not part of Gaul ? No, I don't think so. Does he says that Triboques are Celtic ? (this last one I don't know, could you tell ? aren't they Germanic ?). and for the previous version (when I removed in from the article) : does Strabo say Aquitania has part in Hispania ? does Strabo say that Transalpine Gaul includes north of Italia ? does he talks about Ligurian territories in the Alps ? ).

"Map with the approximate location of pre-Roman Belgic Gaul shortly before Roman conquest according to an interpretation of Caesar." is Ok for the first map I want to use. The second tries to present Belgae tribes, I found a map who does (in Latin/English instead of French), and I do agree that the caption needs little adjustment (we don't have colour on it, but I think it still better to use a map which does not present wrong statements (all the ones I've listed previously are gone as I reverted it to a former state, but a new one appears : the Helvetii aren't in green)).

Other modification still have to be made on the map if you want it not to be false (Helvetii, Rauraci) (I can't make it, don't know how to make them properly), and probably more if you want it to be based on Strabo (Triboques ?).

Elfast (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think saying that I am "defending" this map is not a correct interpretation. The map was already in the article and you replaced it with a different map but using the same caption. The map might have problems and your edit can have problems at the same time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi andrew,

I saw your message. Sure thing. And, why don’t we discuss about Chlodio on the talk page. I would love to talk to you about the early Franks PrinceofFrancia (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I know this is a tad late but I left a message on the Chlodio talk page regarding his birth. I may have found a source. PrinceofFrancia (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Aristotle

hi andrew, i see you undid my contribution on Aristotle. i understand, since i did't provide sources, and don't know how to include them in wikipedia. anyway: Bradie and Miller [1984, 143]: ‘The type of movement required on Aristotle’s account for a potential for form is the type of movement exemplified by the DNA molecule. The genetic “program” contained in the molecule’s structure directs and limits the organism’s growth in the manner set forth in Aristotle’s biological writings.’ see: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1174/aristel.5.10.pdf Posted by User:Mirrormundo

Andrew, I have no opinion on translations new or old, though there are obvious possible advantages in using the new, and in benefiting from recent scholarship. Feel free to tweak the article as you see fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saxons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Merovech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somme (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Merovech

Hi andrew, I saw your edit that said that there is no consensus on Merovechs reign. However, user @KansasBear cited “458” as the closer date of Merovechs death than “457” in the page “Merovech”. What do you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.37.195 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think the same way. There are no known exact dates or titles (such as king) for Merovech. Therefore discussion about them as clear facts in the lead is the worst way to mention any guesses or speculations. Because books do make speculations, there is at least an argument for mentioning some in other places. But I agree these also need to caution. Honestly the more serious the book the less they are going to even make such a guess. We do have some information about Childeric and Chlodio, but not Merovech. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts in Human nature

Dear colleague,

You are an editor since 2008. You must know well our core policies well enough already. You cannot restore challenged unreferenced information. The text in question was tagged since 2016. there was enough time to add sources.

The subject is quite vague. Therefore to avoid disservice to readers, any statements must be supported only from works published by recognized experts in philosophy, and from several ones, too. Because I am pretty sure there must be different points of view. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Barbarians

By the same argument, we might as well put quotation marks around the names of the besiegers in the Siege of Hippo Regius, lest people think we're talking about people engaged in criminal damaging, or around the names of the Romans' allies at the Catalaunian Fields, lest people think that they dressed in black and wore weird makeup. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a matter of assuming good faith and not unequivocally calling them scare quotes. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes are inappropriate: ridiculing a point of view is grossly non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No accusations have been made by me of you, but since you now begin to comment on the contributor, not on the content, no further responses will be forthcoming. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merovingian dynasty

The original point of the sentence you revised—"They were originally rulers of the Salian tribe"—was that the the first Merovingians (Childeric I and Clovis I) were not at first rulers of all the Franks but just of a part. They made themselves rulers of all by war, just as the came to rule (almost) all Gaul by war. That was the point. I'm not sure the title "King of the Franks" was used while Childeric was still indisputably in the Roman army. Srnec (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

New section

Hello there, I just saw that the Asian R1a section is totally empty, no graphics no maps. Under this link there are many pictures we can use though: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haplogroup_R1a_of_Y-DNA

Would you be so kind and help to improve this part of wikipedia? Thanks 2.247.249.158 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dab remark on Machiavellianism

I was recently pondering about your suggestion about a dab remark, and I became more interested. How do you think it should be done? SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amaury, Count of Valenciennes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hainaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Common Sense

I hope you will agree with me that it makes little sense for us to keep changing and reverting the redirect Common Sense. I understand your points but I respectfully disagree. Common Sense is a popular topic and is what most people searching for that exact string want, as demonstrated by pageviews and wikilinks. The discussion of 6 9 years ago resulted in no change to the redirect by the closer, and it has been stable for many years. The wikilinks you asked about can be seen by clicking on "What links here" when on the redirect's page. Although not a major issue at 11 hits per day, I think it unhelpful to readers to force them to the common sense article only to make them click on a hatnote to get to the article they want. It is not unreasonable for you to disagree with my opinion, but slow motion edit warring is not the answer. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest using WP:RFD, where other editors familiar with redirects can weigh in. They might well agree with you. WP:3O is another possibility, though I think RFD is the better way to go. Station1 (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Station1 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Split on Machiavellianism

I proposed a split of the Machiavellianism article, to try to reach consensus. After looking at it again, I admit I underlooked, and agree that the article is a content fork, and I would like for you to come discuss it on the talk page.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Hello Andrew Lancaster,

The article "Machiavellianism" is being discussed for deletion here and I don't want you to be left out.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

William Marshal

Hi. Thanks for adding the RS for the tomb of Marshal. I don't have the book, or I'd do it myself, but something really needs to be added to the "Death and Legacy" section about the apparent questioning of the tomb being his. Right now it simply ends with "He died on 14 May 1219 at Caversham, and was buried in the Temple Church in London, where his tomb can still be seen." It creates a conflict of information within the page. If you could add something that would be great. Vyselink (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Xenophon article

Hi, you reverted a change I made on the Xenophon article (which is fine, obviously). I've given a fuller explanation on the talk page of that article about why I think that particular section should be removed (or at least massively rewritten to the extent that its essentially a new section, something I don't feel remotely confident to do). I want to continue the conversation on that page's talk page, but I'm not sure how to ping people, so I wanted to leave a message here to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a Rube (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Just a Rube (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Germanic peoples shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fram (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples article - for discussion

@Krakkos:@Obenritter:@Florian Blaschke:@Austronesier:@Joshua Jonathan:@Ermenrich: This was something I started writing in a reply on the talk page of Obenritter. Perhaps worth posting here instead, in the hope it cuts to the real core of problems on the said article, and gets more useful discussion?

In reply to the objection that I have been "deletionist" on Germanic peoples:

• I disagree if you think I am trying to "delete" material about Germanic-speaking peoples, but I can see that is the impression Krakkos is perhaps trying to create, by constantly inserting duplicated materials into the wrong places (especially the first paragraph) where they have to be deleted. However there is nothing stopping editors from adding more information about Germanic-language speakers, including modern ones, as long as it respects the existing logical structure. Languages are currently first noted in the second paragraph, because something needs to come second. (If the article was Germanic-language based first, Roman era secondarily, this style of edit would have the same problem. Duplicating things constantly into the first paragraph, and multiple sections, is a question of bad editing.)
• I do agree that I am one of the editors resistant to reintroduction of lists of modern Germanic peoples "by descent", i.e. racially, NOT linguistically defined e.g. Afrikaners, but not Jamaicans or Ashkenazi Jews etc., such as in the lists the article once had. Krakkos has not mentioned them since this latest split attempt, but he keeps referring back to the split attempt last year where these were certainly the real demand.[3] The more I look at the situation and past discussions, the more I think that this is the real reason why these things are being done, and Krakkos is not wanting to explain any real rationale.

The racial idea is of course sourceable to old works (from Grimm up to the defeat of the Nazis). That historical way of talking can also be covered in this article and others as being something now rejected by scholars, and more typical of fringe groups. Instead, ancestral groupings are studied by population geneticists in quite new ways, with new terminology. The lists which are demanded would in contrast treat the old racial theories as current, when they are not. This is also reflected in the fact that Krakkos has never found good sourcing for modern Germanic peoples except in the linguistic sense. Lists of Germanic modern languages could be fitted into the article near the end without changing the topic. That has never been a problem. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC) @Carlstak:@Johnbod:

collecting background about Germanic peoples recent discussions

• 10:31, 11 December 2019 [4] User:Krakkos begins new topic on talk:Germanic Peoples "Article length"

• Krakkos suggests that to shorten the article the "Culture" section can be split out into another article.
• User:Johnbod suggested that it would be better to move the history section instead.
• User:Andrew Lancaster argued that further work in reducing duplication and the amount of poor material is the preferable way to shorten the article, which is only large for these reasons.
• User:Obenritter felt Andrew Lancaster was exaggerating but agreed the article needed work.
• Conclusion: no agreed plan, some possibilities of agreed aims, no discussion about a new Germani article. Discussion stopped 25 December.

• 26 December 2019 to 17 January 2020. Numerous discussions begun, and editing mainly by Andrew Lancaster, working on shortening but also reducing duplication. Ideas and principles continually updated on talk page.
• 10:51, 17 January 2020 Krakkos posts strange new "RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?"

• No one has ever disagreed that it is within the scope of the article. The result was a foregone conclusion.
• OTOH the background text implies that the RFC was really meant to be about making sure we have an article about modern Germanic speaking peoples.
• The RFC makes no mention of any idea that the article should be exclusively about Germanic speaking peoples. It was not an article topic change proposal or article move proposal.
• Much later. 11:29, 20 January 2020‎ Krakkos adds a new section under "Ethnonyms", which already includes Germani and Teutons, called "Germanic": "includes information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages, per unanimous consensus at Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?"

• 13:46, 17 January 2020‎ Krakkos removes 3,057 bytes‎ from Germanic Peoples [5] "Transferring most of the ethnonym section to Germani, while leaving a summary description" (For new article Germani, not yet made at this time, see below)

• 14:07, 17 January 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster bytes +3,358‎ "rolling back several edits which create a mirror article with obvious aims to change this article in opposition to REPEATEDLY confirmed consensus"
• 14:19, 17 January 2020‎ Krakkos bytes -3,555‎ Undid revision 936227819 by Andrew Lancaster "Rv duplication of content now located at Germani. See Talk:Germanic peoples#Article length"
• 14:36, 17 January 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster bytes +3,555‎ Undid revision "this needs talk first, obviously, as it is a major breaking up of the article in opposition to years of discussion; so use talk first"
• Subsequent edit war warning. Both editors stopped left the article without the massive deletion of material.

• 14:02, 17 January 2020 [6]. Krakkos re-creates the Germani article.

• Large pre-prepared text, based on a pre-existing article, Germanic peoples and clearly covering the same topic at that time.
• Links inserted imply that the existing article, Germanic peoples, is or will be an article about Germanic speaking peoples instead (linguistically defined).
• Several reverts of the material move (as it was described on Germanic people edsum - see above) led to an edit warring warning, and the situation of the material being in BOTH articles. (Still the case 20 Jan.)
• 16:29, 18 January 2020‎ User:Moxy Added Disputed tag to Germani article
• 17:21, 18 January 2020‎ User:Ymblanter Protected "Germani": Edit warring / content dispute: request at WP:RFPP ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC))

• 14:34, 17 January 2020‎ on Germanic Peoples Andrew Lancaster starts "Revisiting the article topic controversy"

• AL reminds Krakkos continuously about this being the real underlying topic causing circular discussions and that the section is prepared and discussion should begin. Krakkos never takes up this offer (as of 20 Jan).

• 10:57, 18 January 2020 on Germanic Peoples Andrew Lancaster starts [7] "Merge proposal. Germani to be merged back to here (new split off article by Krakkos)" In the ensuing discussions:

• Krakkos 22:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC) asked why Andrew Lancaster calls the new article a duplicate "You believe that this is the scope of this article (Germanic peoples) as well?". When Andrew Lancaster pointed out that Krakkos also describes it elsewhere this way since 2018 (which Andrew Lancaster finds to be an over simplification based only on looking at a few opening words), Krakkos changed position: "For thirteen consecutive years (2005 to 2019), this article was about peoples identified as speakers of Germanic languages. [...] When was it decided by the community to make this drastic change of scope?" [8] That question about justifying the present article's topic is then repeated over and over.
• 10:03, 20 January 2020 "Since you've repeatedly refused to provide evidence that your change of topic was backed by consensus, and failed to provide sources for this change [supposedly in 2018], it's safe to assume you have neither. That settles this discussion." Krakkos

Discourse

It is a common strategy of trolls to feign ignorance below the level common sense, with the effect to disrupt an ongoing dialogue, to divert resources of interlocutors, and potentially to lead interlocutors who actually have agreed and managed to cool off into rekindling a heated debate because of the toxic climate created by the troll. So better ignore. What do you think? I can remember you already announced to do so when they still spammed as IP; I admit it is hard.... –Austronesier (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there. I can't really make head nor tail of what is going on in the Germanic people page, but just FYI, the classic example of poisoning the well is actually the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The point being that neither a yes nor a no answer is right if you have never beaten your wife, and to give either answer implicates you.

I think maybe this question under discussion is in fact a false dichotomy. If, as you say, it is neither one nor the other but both, or there is some third way that is not hinted at by the question, then it is a false dichotomy. I hope that is helpful in some way. If not - well, sorry :) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected article moves and redirections

Hi, user Krakkos redirected encyclopedic pages to a typical "potpourri page". Steppe EMBA and Steppe MLBA are genes of its own but were redirected to the potpourri page Western Steppe Herders. Last month he did some article moves, merges and splits without prediscussion or trivial reasons. It looks like he is creating his own racialist DNA world. --46.114.35.107 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the intentions of such things are, I suppose each such case of systematic moves needs to be explained by people with concerns, just like it should be explained by @Krakkos: more often. I should say that I am definitely not a fan of having lots of small articles about closely-related subjects, which might be a risk in some of these cases with archaeological cultures. When there are many small articles, this is exactly when it is hardest for the community to make sure they all give the best information and are un-biased. I suppose, on the other hand, your concern might be that the setting-up favours particular assumptions and maybe even WP:OR? But then the only way forward is to try to explain why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip

Hi,

As a native English please look on the article in the subject, and make a feedback to me regarding wracked vs. racked, who has right??(KIENGIR (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

I read your answer, but then, if you have to choose only between these two, which one you would? Wracked or racked?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your tireless work, often alone, and prudent decision making. In aggregate, your transformation of Germanic peoples into a balanced and enlightening page is truly inspiring. Keep up the good work! Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alaric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaius Carrinas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Magdolna Purgly

Hi,

native English feedback wanted...Her Serene Mistress or Her Serene Highness? (it's about Miklós Horthy's, wife, by Horthy article he is His Serene Highness). Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: in terms of what sounds normal in English, Highness sounds more correct. (Mistress is not really a title of nobility, which is what I presume these are. It is the female version of master, as in school master, master of a house, master craftsman, etc.) I also notice in Horthy's article there is a reference given specifically for the English translation of his title as Highness. However I can not check that reference. Also, I notice that the two words seem to literally mean something like "Emminent lady"? I also notice this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serene_Highness#Hungary which might help . In any case Mistress does not sound right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. You've been warned for edit warring at Goths, per the result of the AN3 complaint. The closure says;

From here on, if either of you makes any change at all on the Goths article without a prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. Both of you are free to make arguments on the Talk page. I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). If Krakkos's changes of the publication dates are indeed an example of poor behavior, as claimed by Andrew on Talk ('insistence on this silliness'), then Andrew should find it easy to get support from others in an RfC.

Be aware of the 'any changes at all' restriction, since that disallows even small technical edits. (The two of you frequenlty disagree about small technical edits). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Concern about your language at User talk:Krakkos

Hello Andrew. In my opinion your recent post on User talk:Krakkos is a personal attack. I'd like you to undo that post and, if necessary, post a revised one which contains no attacks on his character. What you wrote may be considered blockable by at least some administrators. Phrases that cause trouble include:

• "shameless dishonesty"
• "the history of how you lie and screw others"
• "trying to disrupt and make things less clear"
• "you seem unable to work honestly and with others"
• "If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it"

–EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I have replied on your talk page, and apologized and clarified on the talk page of Krakkos. That does not mean I retract the confirmable accusations (not aspersions) that there are systematic mis-reprentations, many against me personally, being made as a POV pushing strategy by Krakkos. I remain ready to look into those with others (including Krakkos of course) if ever anyone is interested. But it should be mentioned that the post now being criticized was not new, and that you came here to me after Krakkos successfully pushed you again, and that was in reaction to good faith efforts by me on the talk page which were partly based on your own advice. The real sequence of events clarifies how this situation should be understood:

1. You pushed me to use RFCs, and I said I was probably indeed going that way
2. I start preparing RFC and RSN definitions openly and in good faith on the article talk page
3. To fight back against RFCs and other good faith work, Krakkos complains to you and asks you to help him against me, describing the older post in the way you have represented it. (Part of a pattern of consensus-fighting behavior of seeking admin help against other editors.)
4. You did that (above) but you also wrote to Krakkos that he should go to ANI, and complained that I did not use RFCs!

So I guess we all need to be a bit careful about what we say concerning other editors. Indeed that is exactly one of the points I was explaining to Krakkos: I will be careful and strict, for example about misrepresentations (for example this case). That does not take away from the fact that I have probably tried harder than any editor ever to help Krakkos be a normal editor, and will continue to look for opportunities to encourage a less controversial style of work. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, despite repeated warnings,[9][10][11][12] your personal attacks have still not ceased. Baselessly accusing other editors of "trying to work against WP policy",[13] not being "a normal editor",[14] and of having "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"[15] is hurtful. I have filed a request for an WP:IBAN or some other remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, as this seems to be the only way to make you stop. Krakkos (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)