Jump to content

User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

May 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Genetic studies of Jews, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: please explain what you are referring to. If I am not mistaken, aren't you referring to something where you are the main editor who has repeated the same unorthodox and now disputed edit several times? I don't see any justification for this threatening and confrontational threat. You only explanations so far for your drastic deletions has been explained in short edsums. If you have a better explanation give it properly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  • You have twice reverted my removal of talk page content started by the sock of a block, racist editor; as an administrator, I think that WP:DENY applies perfectly well here. Now, if you have a better explanation than "there is no emergency here", thereby giving legitimacy to a blocked user who thinks that Wikipedia is his own webhost, well. If you want to start a discussion about the wording in the article, feel free to start a thread on that. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: I have done that. But admins do not have special power to threaten good faith editors in order to get what they want into Wikipedia. You should not be brandishing your admin status at all! Admins are not managers or super-editors. Your edit was disputed, and the only (undeleted) discussion was in edsums. My two reversions are based on the idea that you had done your edits in a rush, and that is still my hope. Your deletions of my edits, and the edits of other good faith editors, are clearly NOT justified by DENY (which you cited), unless it is stretched to the point that it becomes meaningless. Extremism and oversimplification of WP certainly won't lead to a better encyclopedia. There is a very clear tradition on WP that the deleting of whole threads of discussion involving long term good faith editors is a very big call. There is another tradition that when a good faith editor gives a reasonable objection, you don't just make threats and start acting aggressively. You need to take those community positions at least as seriously as the aim of reducing the impact of trolls? Admins should support editors, and not start fights.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Eh, everything you say about me, I can say about you: you reverted without a good argument, and you thereby gave a platform to someone who's blocked indefinitely for all the right reasons--but you actually haven't said a word about that. And what do you even mean with "your edits"? You hadn't contributed to that conversation. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: there is clearly a difference. I am a long term editor of that article, and that talk page. I also made no threats to abuse the system and try to make trouble for you for disagreeing with me. I also did not delete the edits of good faith editors. (Deleting is a much bigger call than restoring?) Those are big differences between us. The article you have barged into is clearly a complex and difficult subject which has needed a lot of careful consideration of wildly different opinions which are often associated with controversies. We can't just ignore every aspect of those controversies. I would never dream of coming into such a situation making major deletions and threats.
Our main mission here is to solve those types of editing and balance problems. Troll chasing obsessions should only be a supporting task? The concept of "contamination" which was used to delete the posts of good faith editors does not belong on WP, and I know of no guideline which mentions it. (I hardly ever hear mention of DENY. I don't see it as something with anywhere near the support and consensus which some of the principles you've broken have.) POV pushers do sometimes need special actions, but they have also traditionally sometimes pushed WP editors to see where there might be problems in articles like this. Just calling all such POV pushing editors trolls and deleting everything they "contaminate", including the posts of other editors, is not a good idea IMHO. Threatening people who object to this approach is even worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It is understandable that some contributors to the free encyclopedia have strong feelings about liberty. However, those who have to deal with the inevitable long-term abusers have strong feelings as well. Your comment at Talk:Genetic studies of Jews (diff) was unnecessarily provocative and off-topic for an article talk page. You may not care if an IP was associated with trolling but it is not helpful to use an article talk page to say so. You are free to raise any points that you believe need consideration but you should focus on article content and sources. Do not encourage POV pushers by mentioning them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I accept that others can have strong feelings, and I do care about trolls. Caring about trolls is not the same as disagreeing about how to handle specific cases. Accepting that people can have strong feelings is not the same as accepting that threats and admin credentials should be bandied about whenever someone disagrees with an edit. The "provocation" you refer to is in fact that I objected to receiving a generic threat for disruptive editing because I tried to preserve a question which needs more discussion. My 2 editsums explain this to Drmies, who I clearly thought might not have understood. That is not very "provocative"! It should be possible to have reasonable differences of opinion on matters like this without dramatization and escalation. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
At least half of your comment (see diff above) talks about an IP and how you don't care about trolling and you are wondering if the IP was correct. That is the provocation because it encourages long-term abusers. If you think there is an issue regarding article content, talk about the issue—text that is in the article, or which should be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: thanks for looking at it further, but I'm afraid that is not correct. First of all the threat above was posted before my "provocation" (as you call it), and so you are reversing cause and effect by using the term "provocation". It was a reaction. The provocation is above. Secondly, and connected to that, either you are deliberately twisting my words, or you need to read that post more carefully. "I honestly don't care if the point was raised by an IP associated with trolling." In other words, once again my post is about something and has to be read in context. It says that I think threads involving good faith editors should not be automatically deleted because of association ("contamination") with someone who has been declared a troll. Trolls can in fact make valid points. Obviously we can't have admins going around deleting arguments because trolls might agree with them? I hope you agree, but even if not my opinion is obviously quite different from saying that I don't care about trolls! Hopefully we can agree on that at least.
Perhaps you will also note that there is also an implication in my post that I question how this POV pushing IP was designated as a troll and described as racist. Honestly, I am still wondering about that. Is that "provocative"? The Elhaik article which the IP editor wants to give more emphasis to is controversial, and has been a source of awkward discussions for years. However, I don't think it should be called "racist", as @Drmies: seemed to in the initial edit [1]. Many of Elhaik's specific conclusions are out of date, and were controversial from the start, but that's clearly not the specific point the IP was pushing. Looking for triggers among the IP's priorities, it is not racist to question the idea of there being a single biological Jewish race. I don't think Elhaik, who is an Israeli, is controversial for believing that. The IP's constant references to the influence of "Zionism" are certainly over the top, and tone-deaf, but I also don't think this term is automatically racist. This is clearly the type of article where it can sometimes be referred to in its proper sense. Academics rightfully question whether any ideologies have influenced studies, and such concerns are certainly important in articles about "race". Drmies might have seen something else, but I could not see it at first sight. All or most of the edits of this IP are just pushing the same basic ideas AFAIK. As far as I can see concerning the small edit war on the article, which Drmies entered into with 2 reversions, it was not really a very controversial edit. Perhaps Drmies does not realize that. It involves adding a short summary into the lead, about some information which is in the article already. However, as far as I can see, the decision to designate this POV-pushing IP as a "troll" might even hang mainly upon that little edit war? In any case Drmies gave no specific evidence to justify the strong terms "racist" and "troll". To me, POV pushing is different from trolling, and the different meanings of words in cases like this are worth being cautious about, even if we have "strong feelings" about trolls and racism. Note that I am not sure about the background thinking of Drmies, but I do feel uncomfortable with serious words like this being used in ways in order to quickly get the edits we want. If we are serious about the word "troll" then we won't use it to get the edits we want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what "is not correct" refers to. I was explaining my earlier "was unnecessarily provocative and off-topic"—I was not referring to any provocation you may have experienced. Debates concerning philosophies of running a website are not productive and agreement is unlikely. The take-home message is that there are now two admins warning you that encouraging long-term abusers will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: by now you clearly know very well that you misleadingly described me as saying that I do not care about trolls. Instead of changing the topic or threatening me, an apology would be fine. My post was also certainly not off topic, so you could apologize for that misleading remark too if like. Up to you. Concerning the question of whether I "encouraged" "racists" or "trolls", I think this is obviously deliberately overdramatic. If an editor I do not know deletes a whole thread and claims "racism" without citing any evidence then similar situations can occur? As I noted from the beginning I looked around quickly to for any signs of an "emergency" and did not see any. The editor involved could have chosen to give the evidence after that. At this stage I still have not received any. Instead I received a threat. I would still like to know whether this decision about the IP the result of a community decision, or just a quick decision by one editor?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not hold your breath for an apology. If you cannot see how your actions can embolden a longterm troll, then you have a lot to learn. That you didn't see an "emergency", whatever that is supposed to mean, is not a yardstick for my administrative actions. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: I am not a new editor, and I can survive without the apologies, but your attitude towards accountability and collegiality needs work IMHO. This is not because of my ideals, but because of what works. Please be more careful about little things like accusations and threats when intervening into situations like this. Rapid escalations and obviously overdramatic attacks on good faith editors, can in fact embolden bad editors, and create more angst (and new trolls) out there in the internet. I agree that there is no point talking about this in circles. However, we should all be able to live with reasonable levels of disagreement, and I hope you can agree with that principle.
FWIW, I've now gone to look at the old SteveBenassi account, which you apparently see as the same editor. There is a familiar pattern and there are many people out there who struggle with these topics about DNA, races, ethnic groups etc., and they will keep coming because of all the nonsense on the internet. We obviously don't need such people as editors but some of the issues they raise can help us to consider points in the article where we need to explain carefully. Carefully written articles on WP can help reduce disruption, because they reduce misunderstandings, and potential disruptive editors can see their questions are handled. You are also right that people concerned and confused about these issues also look at talk pages looking for signs of censorship and so on. I personally try to avoid words like racist and troll except in very clear cases, because both of them require knowledge of what people are thinking. This is just good practice at all times IMHO. You can ignore all of this advice but I offer it in good faith and hope it can help you - at least in understanding my own thoughts on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is the same editor. I am going to refrain from giving you advice, and I have no intention of coming back here, so there is no need to ping me. One last thing: you seem to think that "racist trolling" is a function of intent; it is not. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
> "misleadingly described me as saying that I do not care about trolls"
I said nothing misleading. I gave diff in which you said "I honestly don't care if the point was raised by an IP associated with trolling.". In my 09:23, 8 May 2024 comment above, I summarized that as "You may not care if an IP was associated with trolling but it is not helpful to use an article talk page to say so." Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:. FWIW compare: I do not care if this point was raised by X (my sentence); I do not care if the person who raised this point was X (your rewriting). Can you see that these are two different statements? One is about the point. The other is about the person. So I do care if the IP was a troll, and I never said otherwise. My "provocative" proposal is that we have to be allowed to say that "1+1=2" both before and after a troll says it. Our central mission demands this absolutely. Apparently you disagree (or perhaps don't care), and that's why I fear mission creep which is apparently in conflict with WP's main mission. Secondly, you also wrote this: At least half of your comment (see diff above) talks about an IP and how you don't care about trolling. I presume that you forgot that wrote that? In any case, by now you seem to have accepted that it is not true? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
So you care if the IP was a troll and you still thought it a good use of an article talk page to write a comment featuring them. Admins do not need to persuade someone to agree with being blocked and my warning stands. It is simply not helpful to take actions that do the opposite of WP:DENY. If you think there is an issue regarding article content, talk about the issue—content which is, or which should be, in the article. Do not talk about contributors, and particularly do not talk about them when there is reason to believe they are a long-term abuser. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: you came back to my talk page to argue unconvincingly that you have not been twisting my words. Please do not keep trying to twist things. Yes, we are both concerned about trolls. We disagree on other points, and you said you don't want to discuss "philosophies of running a website" (your words). FWIW though, better WP articles really are still our main aim AFAIK, and luckily, the better they are the less they tend to attract trolls. To make better WP articles we often need to talk about past controversies on the articles. DENY is OTOH an essay. It is being interpreted in an extreme way by you, as shown by the fact that you keep resorting to saying you are an admin. And what is the "opposite" of DENY? Your aggressive dismissal of the need for accountability and transparency is something I find very worrying. If there are going to be forbidden topics, then there needs to be an agreed list of them that everyone can easily know about by editors, and if necessary reviewed. Banning absolutely ALL reference to all blocked editors would be a new approach AFAIK, not demanded in DENY, and it would lead to ridiculous and confusing talk page discussion in this type of article where the same topics come back each year, and we want to get better each time at handling them. As editors we sometimes need to discuss repeating controversies, as repeating controversies. There needs to be some common sense and collegiality when it comes to DENY?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why did you remove my definition from this page

the page i am talking about is the this page. why did you remove my definiton of common sense? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not the person who reverted that specific change, but most of your changes are low quality, badly proofread, somewhat incorrect, and leave the article in a worse state than it was in before you edited them. LitanyOfBoredom (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Lancaster,

You reverted my contribution to Gerhard of the Moselle, Count of Metz. Of course it is debatable whether on should see every other language. However, removing my link Matfriede (noble family) I think is plain wrong. I was well aware of the fact that this article does (not yet?) exist. However, linking to Matfriede is wrong, because the article speaks of the Matfriede family, not of a person called Matfrid died 836. Because an article about the Matfriede family only exists in other languages, e.g., at de:Matfriede, the red link here is necessary. After your latest modification, even the link to the German Wikipedia is not visible any longer. Of course one can remove the link at all, but I think that doesn't help readers.

One could perhaps change the link into {{ill|Matfriede (noble family)|lt=Matfriede|fr|Girardides}} although I prefer some more languages.

The article was listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Interlanguage link templates need to fix, therefore I've fixed it like this.

Regards
Cyfal

Cyfal thanks for contacting me. After looking at it more I can see what a mess it is.
  • One source of problems is that someone has already made (wrongly, I think we would agree) a dab page on English WP which goes from Matfriede, which is obviously a family name, to the article you mention about one individual Matfrid. I did not realize that when I first saw your edits. So for the time being that article is about the family as well ... supposedly, and so technically we should either link to it, or else ask for the dab to be deleted, or else make a real target article. I notice someone has put a few little notes about the family in the article about the individual, but that is a silly situation.
  • Your approach tried to work around the problem without setting up for a better future. Matfriede (noble family) is not a logical name on Wikipedia, because Matfriede on its own is already the name of a family, and has no other meaning. When you make a redlink it should be one you expect other Wikipedians will also use in the future. The real problem is the existence of the dab with no target article. I think we need to turn the dab into at least a stub.
  • I can't imagine any possible reason for linking to every little article such as Bulgarian etc.? I don't think that is the normal approach on WP at all. We should pick one or max. two good ones. I also can't imagine why you deleted the links to the German article??? That clearly seems like the main one we should link to. Most of the others seem to be about the "Girardides" who are possibly related. (One of the problems with all the articles is that they are presenting highly speculative ideas as facts.)
I will try to turn the dab into a stub and then that should create a situation which will be easier to work on further.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed answer. If you proceed as you proposed it will be clearly a much better solution of the problem. I fixed some other language links similarily recently and had always the problem in case the English article did not exist, I've needed to guess a plausible disambiguator (e.g., like here "noble family").
When linking to only one or two foreign languages, then my idea was to include French, because region nowadays is in France, but I leave this now up to you because you put more work into this article, so you have clearly a better idea what is appropriate.
Regards, Cyfal

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rugii, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holm and Krems.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Quadi
added links pointing to Drusus, Alaric and Morava
Heruli
added a link pointing to Constantine III

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quadi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Celtic and Morava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Medieval Diocese of Cambrai

Loved your map. I believe you want "Dunkirk" or some other version of this spelling rather than the typo that you have (Dunkrik). Thanks for uploading. Tonton Macoute (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you are right. I'll have to look if I can still find this old file.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hello Andrew Lancaster! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Request for third party feedback, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic maps

Hi Andrew,

I've been working on a new draft of the article North Sea Germanic ([user:Ermenrich/sandbox]]) and I was wondering whether, if I sent you some images of academic maps, you might be able to recreate them to illustrate the geographic spread of some linguistic features? Stuff like the extent of 3rd person pronouns with "h-", monophthongization of ai and au, etc. are just screaming for maps.

Additionally, Austronesier and I have been working on a far larger draft on the Continental Germanic dialect continuum (see user:Austronesier/sandbox5) and I'm sure he would also have some requests if you'd be willing to help out!

Thanks in advance!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: the challenge, at least using the software type of method I was trying to use lately, is getting a dataset for the areas involved. I think sometimes the academic teams involved are willing to supply their own data. Otherwise it comes down to artistic image manipulation, which I don't think I'm especially good at. I think there are places on WP where requests can be offered though? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genobaud (3rd century), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Neo-Romans

Excuse me, I didn't want to vandalised any article, if you thought that, my apologies. The point of my editions was: If visigoths, burgundians, ostrogoths, franks, etc. were germanic peoples in their origins because their lingüistic group. Once they became part of the Empire and were romanized, they should be renamed as latin (if we're focus in the language) or roman peoples (if we're focus in their culture as a whole).

If you read about the "Medieval Latins", you can see franks (alongside normans and venetians) being mentionated, despite their germanic origin, same can be say of the burgundians, goths, etc. Those peoples hadn't the same language nor culture in the III century that in the V-VIs.

Also take in mind that many of those peoples weren't unified peoples perse, but confederations of many different tribes that absorbed other that perhaps weren't even germanic-speaking, plus all the roman deserters and refugees (latin-speaking, roman-cultured).

Thanks for taking time to read it. 83.58.148.140 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I realized that this would be the type of thing you were thinking, but adding this type of point is not something we do by first adding information into the lead or infobox. First you'll need to get some consensus about how this can be explained and sourced in the body. A point like this will definitely need some homework to get right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, and the same to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Ifly6 (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
- especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)) Ifly6 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ifly6. Have a good holiday season.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A warning message without association to deprecation

I've been thinking for awhile that having a warning message separate from deprecation would be helpful. With a message about UGC, self published or circular sources etc. Obviously not all of them, but just ones that waste editors time by being often readded as references. It therefore wouldn't include the additional aspects and limitations of deprecation. Do you have any feedback on the idea, would if be more acceptable then using the deprecation process? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bergakker rune

I saw you removed details about the Bergakker rune and it's meaning according to the scientists. I like to inform you that the source from my input is on the page of the Bergakker rune which i added a link too. Damianooss (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Damianooss: I looked there and found a only a reference to some museum information which was clearly being used wrongly. But maybe I missed something. If there is a source then let's make that more clear in order to avoid misunderstandings. But what is it? For now, I don't think there is any consensus about any full translation at all, and so it can't prove very much? I see scholars tend think it represents a Germanic language, but not all Germanic speakers were Salian Franks, and I see no source describing the language as specifically Dutch-like?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
https://deorreader.wordpress.com/tag/bergakker-inscription/
http://www.arild-hauge.com/PDF/Runes-around-north-sea-c9.pdf
These are two links with more information. Damianooss (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems the exact words i quoted are no longer on the page and i don't know who exactly said it, but basically it is a conclusion of which is discovered. The discovery is also in line with the accounts given by the ancient historians Ammianus Marcellinus en Zosimus. Damianooss (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Damianooss: you can see who changed the page by looking at the page history. (For example I removed some of the claims, but the article is still problematic.) Do you know how to do that? I do not know which name you were editing under. The first source you cite is a blog which in fact even cites Wikipedia. We can't use that on WP as a reliable source. The second source does not make any strong conclusions about any of the objects discussed being Frankish, let alone Salian. Also keep in mind that in WP if you claim there is an academic consensus for something you need very good sourcing for that because it is a strong statement. Concerning Ammianus I am not really sure what you mean, but once again you have to make sure you avoid original research. In general the only sources which mention the Salians mention them as people who were living near non-Salians in a situation where people were moving around. There were Salians, Chamavi and other inhabitants on Batavia for example, and it seems the region had been lightly populated and unstable since the 3rd century. (A source about this: Roymans, Nico; Heeren, Stijn (2021), "Romano-Frankish interaction in the Lower Rhine frontier zone from the late 3rd to the 5th century – Some key archaeological trends explored", Germania, 99: 133–156, doi:10.11588/ger.2021.92212) So I don't see how the written sources can help us determine whether a weapon was specifically Salian? Anyway, if you want to find more sources for this type of thing you could perhaps start by checking which papers have been posted on academia.edu. Try a google search for this: Bergakker site:academia.edu . One of the articles there is this one: https://www.academia.edu/101506575/Frisian_Runes_Revisited_and_an_Update_on_the_Bergakker_Runic_Item and this https://www.academia.edu/44900239/A_Possibly_Misidentified_Rune_and_other_Graphemic_Peculiarities_on_the_Bergakker_Scabbard_Mouthpiece --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that the Chamavi lived there too? I like to learn more. I quote from history of Ammianus Marcellinus, book 17, chapter VIII: He then attacked the Chamavi, who had been guilty of similar audacity, and through the same celerity of movement he slew one portion of them, and another who made a vigorous resistance he took prisoners, while others who fled precipitately he allowed to escape unhurt to their own territories, to avoid exhausting his soldiers with a long campaign. And when ambassadors were afterwards sent by them to implore his pardon, and generally to do what they could for them, when they prostrated themselves before him, he granted them peace on condition of retiring to their own districts without doing any mischief. Julianus sent them back to the districts in 358, it does not say where that was. The Franks however were allowed to stay and got subjugated according to the same chapter i quoted from. Damianooss (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
You have a point. But they were at least clearly living in Batavia before Julian's attack. Other sources show they were living in the delta south of the Rhine in the late third century. (When various emperors claimed to have expelled them.) When the sources for Julian's time say that he expelled them the implication is indeed that they were pushed completely out of the empire including even Batavia, but the sources are not that detailed. As to whether they were fully subjugated, remember we are reading political propaganda. According to the Roymans article I cited the Romans had given up on the whole area a long time ago as far as normal government was concerned, except some of the forts. It seems Julian managed to re-man some forts and secure a path for grain shipments. He clearly needed an agreement with the Chamavi, and could not completely subjugate them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Quadi in the Marcomanni article

Give me proof please that Zosimus made a mistake appart from modern scholars. If that was the case, i assume some other historical scholar would have mentioned it. This is necesary to back up such a big claim. Second give me a source where it says that the Quadii were Suevii. Damianooss (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

As previously discussed between us, on Wikipedia we report what the scholars have published, and not what we think of that. We don't need to discuss further than that. Stop working against that principle. I thought you agreed to work according to those rules? Apart from that: (1) Concerning the Quadi, they were a very well recorded Suevian people. They have their own article which I recently worked on. It has sourcing including references to the primary sources. (2) You should already know the evidence for the mistake in Zosimus because we recently discussed it and I explained both the primary and secondary evidence. Did you ever bother looking at any of the evidence I gave, for example on the Salian Franks talk page? See in particular the explanation about what Eunapius (appanrently the source of Zosimus) originally said [2]. This is apparently something you are still unaware of from your personal research, but please read the explanations people give when they are trying to help you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The source you quoted from Eunapius does not proof that Zosimus is wrong. The attack of the Quadii did not have to be conquest. Ammianus explicitly stated that they moved into Roman territory in the same audacity as the Salii. Nowhere does Zosimus say too that the Quadii were expelled afterwards. According to Ammianus, book 17, chapter XII, the Quadii were better in raiding than in warfare, i quote: These tribes are more suited for raids than for regular warfare. Later he says this, i quote from the same chapter: as partners in their danger, the Quadi, who had previously participated in injuries inflicted on us. This is written after the account given by Ammianus on the Chamavi and Salli entering the Roman territory. Unfortunately you use a lot mental gymnastics to try to disprove Zosimus. The source of Eunapius you mentioned and Ammianus do not say who attacked the Salii. You have not pursuaded me with you're evidence why it were not the Quadii, you should know that is known that they lived above Pannonia. Maybe those that attacked the Salii lived closer, maybe. I am not the one that has to give evidence for my claim, you should, and those that say that a historical scholar is wrong without evidence to back it up. Damianooss (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Just because the Quadii lived next to the Suevii, that does not mean they were automatically Suevii. Because this is you're reasoning even tho it has been contradicted too. Just as i said earlier, if you have any different kind of evidence to back this up, i like to see it. Please respond to this discussion rather than the other page because we were talking on the page of a different subject. Damianooss (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I am not trying to disprove Zosimus. You know very well (if you have read any of this material) that published experts think the text has an error in it. We summarize what they say. You are coming here with no modern secondary source, and demanding that others prove that you are wrong, and modern experts right. That is NOT how we work. Are you going to work according to Wikipedia rules or not? Please decide. Also:
  • The quote you give from Ammianus 17 is about the Quadi who lived near modern Slovakia, near the Marcomanni and Iazyges.
  • Zosimus says the "Quadi" in Batavia were part of the Saxons and one of the peoples of that region.
  • I guess you did not notice that the stories of the Chamavi of Eunapius and the Quadi of Zosimus contain identical details such as the son of the king being captured by Julian. The story of the king who believed his son dead, breaking down and crying, only to find him being held by the Romans, is identical. Published experts mention this as part of the relevant evidence when discussing whether the Zosimus text contains an error.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Concerning the Quadi near the Danube they were described as Suebi by Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, and many others. Furthermore, once again, modern experts are unanimous about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
For this reason there is a discussion page, in disagreement we should try to resolve the disagreement. If you make contributions to pages. It is a must that you can give proper account for you're addition or adjustment, in the same way you did to me on this page and i accepted it. I ask of you if you can give me a more detailed reference to the chapter where Eunapius said this. You said you were going to share a copy of the page link but i think you forgot to do that. I am looking into it right now btw, i can see the simular stories. Concerining the Strabo, Pliny, Tacticus, again can you please give me a detailed reference so that i can look it up myself? Damianooss (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
No, I already gave you a link and a full translation on the Salian talk page, and you seem to be deliberately wasting my time now. If not then it is very concerning to me that you are willing to act and write in an aggressive way, making strong accusations and insults, but at the same time you do not even read the information I have posted for you. I was trying to help you. Concerning whether there were Quadi living near the Danube I think you can best go to the Quadi article and post questions on the talk page there (if you really have any). Personally I find it stunning that someone who claims to know more than published experts is raising this question at all. The Quadi are a very big topic, covering centuries, with much more evidence available than for the Chamavi or Salians. Please note that the following two points need a response, and please don't keep changing the subject:
  • Do you accept that you need to work according to Wikipedia rules, which is to report what modern expert sources publish?
  • Will you self revert your deletion of the Quadi from the lead in the Marcomanni article? I can't see how any of these points you've raised can justify deleting them from the lead as if there were no Quadi living near the Marcomanni! (Even if they were called Saxons it would not matter.) The Quadi should be mentioned in that lead, because the lead summarizes the article. In WP articles most sourcing is normally in the article, not the lead.
I suggest you revert that deletion and if you still have a real concern please explain it on the Marcomanni talk page in a clear way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
First of all, i did not bother you're message to me, i think it was out of place and you misrepresented my input but which you apologized for, so no worries. I can admit that because of this you're message on Eunapius went over my head. You did not bring a link, i checked? You copied the text from ChatGPT you said and only mentioned fragment 12. And i am talking about the Salian Franks page, you did not give proper reverence to the evidence you claim to have. And i have never used insults? I'm not deliberately wasting you're time? Stop with the accusations please, talking about typing in an aggresive way. I have never claimed to know more than experts? But i only care abour the evidence of the experts for their claims which is what matters, so that i can understand it and see if i might made a mistake. Please give me a functional reverence before you suggest me to revert a deletion so that i can come into a agreement first. Like it should be. Otherwise you can say anything and i can't know wether you're claim is true. If you refuse you have not give proper explanation for deleting my adjustment. And you too should try to follow the given Wikipedia rules. I have not deleted the Quadii on the Marcomanii page because they did not live there? No, they lived there, that was not the statement, the statement was that they were a group of Suevii. Which i ask you to quote who said this. Asking questions is being aggresive? I tried to continue the conversation on you're talk page but you refused for a reason unknown? I think that would be proper place to continue this conversation. Damianooss (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Not only did I post a link to Eunapius texts on the Salian Franks talk page, but I also posted the link again in THIS discussion!! You clearly haven't tried to check what sources have been given at all. You just keep demanding more information that you will never read. Please post your questions about specific articles on the article talk pages. Don't delete material like you did on Marcomanni. Try first to read and understand what is in the BODY of articles, including reading the sources, and reading what is said to you on talk pages. Also make sure you never delete or change articles to match your personal opinions. If modern expert publications say something then that is good enough in most cases. Your personal ideas about what Zosimus originally wrote are not to be published on Wikipedia. Can you work that way or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Stop jumping all over the place and let's first get to one point at the time. You say you shared a page link of the chronicle of Eunapius, but i looked and do not see it. We can blame eachother or try to resolve the matter Damianooss (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I think there is only one link in this discussion, which is in my first reply to your first post. As explained in that reply, that link shows that I gave you a link to a webpage with Eunapius fragments on the Salian Franks talk page. But I think you are still working on the basis that I have to prove to you that modern experts are right. I don't. This is Wikipedia and not a place for you to publish your personal opinions. I have been trying to help you by putting in extra efforts which I did not need to make. Please don't expect people to work this way on Wikipedia! Put in some effort yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/126457850/Julians_Batavian_Campaign_an_Embezzlement_Trial_in_Britain_and_Barbarian_Access_to_the_Annona_Militaris This is the only link you shared, which is not about the fragment of Eunapius okay? Damianooss (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, please learn to do your own homework, and stop pushing others to do your work for you. Here is the link once again https://www.dfhg-project.org/DFHG/digger.php?what%5B%5D=author%7CEUNAPIUS+SARDIANUS&onoffswitch=on (I got to this link in a couple of seconds by following the same advice I just posted.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay this discussion is absolutely terrible, asking for you're sources is like doing no homework to you. I am actually done talking to you for now. It seems you have a hard time explaining yourself, but you should if you make edits on Wikipedia. But thanks for eventually sharing this link. I will redo the deletion although you refuse to give me a secundary and primary source that says that the Quadii are considered Suevii. Damianooss (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
All the sources are there for you when you have the time and energy to just look at them. When you have a question please raise it on an article talk page. everything can be improve but do not delete material that you have no clue about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salian Franks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Map of Hesbaye

Hello! I would like to know what is the source of the map of the early medieval records of places in the pagus of Hasbania. 73.217.56.220 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

New article

Hi, are you trying to start four discussions? I would suggest that one discussion would be better, with links from the other talk pages. I agree with your concerns BTW. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: sorry no I was thinking it was clear that we should all talk at the new article. I'll try to make that clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Lancaster/Archive_7&oldid=1284586030"