User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2020/February

Suspected new sock of GoogleMeNowPlease

You might check new editor User:RooneysBaldHead as a suspected sock of banned user User:GoogleMeNowPlease. There's also a strange message he just left on my personal Talk page that might, or might not, be of interest.Achar Sva (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Meanwhile he got indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

AIV

I can't block an IP for that one single edit. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Filiative nomen

I was surprised and somewhat dismayed to discover your IGF deletion of 2kb of text from Filiative nomen as WP: FRINGE. If your reason was that there was only one citation for it and therefore, supposably, only one scholar to support this theory, then I wish you had tagged it as needing more citations instead of deleting it.

I am as opposed to pseudoscience as you are. I found the following in Google Books:

---

The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, C. 1800-1550 B.C.

• Authors: K. S. B. Ryholt, Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
• Compiled by: Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
• Contributor: Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
• Publisher: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997
• ISBN: 8772894210, 9788772894218

---

Part III of the book, "The Royal Families and the Background of the Kings", begins on page 207 with a one-paragraph section on the aims of this part. Then §3.2, "Filiative nomina", begins

An important feature in the discussion of the background of the individual kings is the use of filiative nomina through which a king expressed his royal paternity during the early Thirteenth Dynasty. The purpose of these names was obviously to display the legitimacy of the ruling king.

The author then discusses and rebuts another scholar's position on these names, and analyzes the names of nine kings of the early Thirteenth Dynasty. On p. 213 he writes, "One of the larger families of the Thirteenth Dynasty can be reconstructed by its use of filiative nomina" and proceeds to do so.

This is not a fringe theory, and I intend to restore the deleted text and notes, augmenting them with a brief summary of what I have written here. Before doing so, though, I hope to hear from you on the subject.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The WP:CONSENSUS is that Gertoux does not write WP:RS. Take it to WP:FTN or WP:RSN if you wish. So you may only quote WP:RS, avoid Gertoux as the pest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)