User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 7

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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
		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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Link? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

    I extend the olive branch.
    I usually just try to forget user names (a habit I use to try to remain focused on content instead of contributor). Yours nevertheless sticks in my mind, and brings up a dim memory of a very heated argument (about what, I don't recall), in which I think I was overly strident, dismissive, and/or insulting. For that I offer an apology. And I'm glad that on another subject we're in close agreement on at least something (the important part, about scope, if not on a more trivial question of which i'box template to use).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I have a similar dim memory. I appreciate the olive branch. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I just wanna talk Garboge6969 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Lancaster, you removed a map that I created for the article showing the settlement area of the Quadi people in the late Roman era. If you take a look at the Commons description page of the map, you can see that I indicated the sources for the map. All three sources are high-quality and recent scientific articles, two of which also contain maps indicating known Quadi archaeological sites. The third study deals with the eastern zone of the area of the Quadi people, and in this controversial issue, following a cautious, conservative approach, I have marked on the map only those areas that, according to the study, can be considered inhabited by them based on scientific consensus. Until now, there has been no map on Wikipedia showing the area of ​​the Quadii, while archaeological discoveries have made it possible to draw one, and as I wrote, such maps have appeared in studies. However, we cannot use these for copyright reasons, so I created this one for Wikipedia. Obviously, any such map contains uncertainties and can become outdated as new discoveries are made, but I don't think it's better to show nothing at all. I would like to avoid an editorial conflict, but the map is well-founded, and the three scientific sources can be included in the article. Zello (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC) @Zello: please answer on the talk page of the article, and consider what I have posted there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Explain why 'it is not an improvement'. The way you put it it just reads like a truism. I will gladly admit you're right if you manage to give a convincing argument. 2A02:A03F:8D49:8D00:6885:BCA4:7727:BE7D (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

If this is about a specific article then post on the talk page of that article with your explanation about why it is an improvement. The onus is upon the person adding material. WP:ONUS--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

not sure the vast majority of this unsourced material is worthy of keeping ...... I consider you the steward of the article...... Is this worthy of keeping.... and trying to find sources? Moxy🍁 17:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy: I have not looked at it, but as I have indicated on the talk page I am interested to know if this is for example a large copy-paste meant to be the start of better editing. I have my concerns though. We have had several rounds of discussion, but many of the visiting editors seem to be more into putting on a show than actually doing to the hard slog of finding sources, and editing in a way which matches the WP project's aims. Perhaps the problem is that me and a couple of other history-oriented editors are willing to do that, while no one interested in other Germany topics seems willing or able.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes,it was a joke,dont tell Wikipedia ThatOneSovietVolunteer (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

When and if you have some time Andrew, the Ariovistus page could use some additional work. I've already eliminated a lot of unsourced (or only primary sourced) redundant content. However, there is certainly room for additional expansion and improvement. Take a look when you get a chance. Please use the traditional "sfn" sourcing format for consistency's sake when adding substantiated content. Whatever help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Obenritter (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thanks for the vote of confidence! I won't promise anything because I am entangled in some other things, but I'll keep looking at it. I'm not sure it could contain a lot more - because in the end there is so little known about him? In terms of sources, there are some quite good ones already, and a lot of neat footnoting. I notice no use of the Reallexikon article I mentioned, which would be worth comparing to to see if there are any more differences. Concerning footnotes, on this type of article I sometimes like to keep primary references with links, because I think they can be useful to our readers and editors interested in these subjects. But in those cases I tend to use "ref" style mark-up, with the other bits fitted into it. (If there is a neat division between straightforward primary citations, and then sentences which give modern commentary on them, then the footnotes can be simpler.) I guess what I am asking is whether it is a big concern if there are any deviations from sfn?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - one of the things I tend to do is use the "efn" notes for primary sources and expand there, also linking accordingly. Sometimes if a source is widely published, I will use the sfn style for the page but also include the primary source reference location like I've done for references to Caesar. One could theoretically add an "efn" citation behind each instance that is primary and link to the Loeb library version or whatever online ref available as well for the reader. Your call. It's really a matter of keeping the page consistent. Regards --Obenritter (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I have done some additional work, including adding some citations that could use quality review; particularly the ones in French, which is not my strongest language by any means.--Obenritter (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavi (Germanic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew--Recently, I added substantive content based on new archaeo-genetic research concerning the Goths and Jordanes’ Scanzda migration narrative. I recognize that my perspective is not entirely unbiased, so I would appreciate it if you could review the linked and cited articles by Speidel and Stolarek and refine the content as needed. I have aimed for objectivity, but since we may approach this issue from different viewpoints, your input and adjustments or any additional material you deem fit to include to ensure a more balanced interpretation, would be especially valuable and appreciated. Obenritter (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: it is a good case to look at. I already noticed it and wrote a lot of notes. These articles will keep getting better and more relevant so whatever we do in this case it is a good thing to discuss and think about. They present some policy concerns by the way, because I know many good editors see such as articles as primary sources like lab results. In the big mathematical models they often give their variables names which imply a connection to real world places and periods too, which is difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - Glad to hear you are taking the time to review and make notes—your perspective on both the substance and the policy dimensions is really helpful. You’re right that the Speidel and Stolarek studies occupy a somewhat complex position between primary and secondary material, especially given that the archaeo-genetic data itself is essentially "lab results," while the interpretive framing can verge on linking those results to historical ethnonyms or geographic labels. That’s precisely why I thought your input would be valuable here, to ensure we handle the balance between citing cutting-edge scholarship and observing Wikipedia’s sourcing policies carefully.

If you think my current phrasing leans too far toward presenting the genetic findings as definitive historical conclusions, I would welcome your suggestions for how to reframe them in a way that emphasizes their provisional and interpretive nature. I agree that this is a topic likely to evolve rapidly as further studies appear, and setting up the article in a way that makes room for ongoing developments while staying within policy boundaries is an important goal. Please do feel free to adjust, prune, or supplement as you think best—your judgment will help ensure the section stays both accurate and policy-sound. Regards.--Obenritter (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sir - I asked you to rework the section, not try and assume this represented an attempt to include specious content. Instead, you prosecuted the addition to the nth degree on the Talk page, despite my request that you rework/adjust it. That is not collaboration. I was working quickly to try and integrate recent research under the auspices of it needing reviewed, not publicly lambasted. So much for a pleasant working editorial relationship. I deleted the content wholesale since your concerns were so excessive. I understand your qualms with genetic research and Jordanes, but the truth is there is evidence that some of what he reported was correct. That's all this was meant to express. #Highly offended. --Obenritter (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: I posted my detailed comments on the article talk page before I saw your message here. I posted in detail because I didn't want to write something short which may have seemed dismissive of either you, or of genetics studies. I feel bad that you've taken it this way, but I really wonder how you would have reacted if I just started editing in a strong way. I've done my best, and spent time on this, and I couldn't think of a better approach. To avoid misunderstandings, I think that among better history article editors I've had contact with I would probably count as fairly pro-genetics, and I've often tried to find ways to create reduced versions of such sections, which stick more closely to the sources. I made an effort to help you for future cases. For example: how to think about the problems caused by the way variable-names sound like places and peoples; or how the data has big holes in it which the authors would assume that their colleagues realize. However, in this particular case there is another simpler problem which is that the studies cited have nothing to do with Ostrogoths. The Ostrogoths article is not about the Wielbark culture. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

My point was that recent DNA evidence now reveals that (at least a substantial slice of) the people archaeologists call "Wielbark culture" in Roman-period Poland were, genetically, very close to Early Iron Age Scandinavians—exactly the sort of north-to-south linkage Jordanes implies with his Scandza origin story about the Goths. In my excitement at the research, I obviously over editorialized and ended up closer to something like original research. Nonetheless, it's obvious that I am just not up to this anymore. Mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: yes (to a certain extent) but this is a discussion for the Wielbark culture article, and indeed there was already a discussion there which you could/should have been part of. I suppose you probably still haven't noticed that. In that context you might have seen my long feedback as helpful? The simple problem is that we can't (yet) use raw data about reconstructed "Scandinavia like" DNA to DISPROVE the idea that the Wielbark immigrants were from the Przeworsk and/or Jastorf cultures (which are the other common proposals). A major problem here is that many of these cultures used cremation, so there are massive gaps in the data. The geneticists know this. Nevertheless the new studies should (according to me) be reported on the Wielbark article. (Many would not agree.) But this just has nothing at all to do with Ostrogoths. Maybe you're right to step back for a while. I can't help notice that after threatening to leave Wikipedia (not the first time, I believe?), you then used the attention you attracted on your talk page to let people know that I am supposedly editing with an "agenda". Lovely. How rewarding! I don't appreciate that, after spending all that time to try write such detailed feedback to help you understand this topic better. You recently asked me to work according to your instructions on both Ostrogoths and (prior to that) Ariovistus, but maybe you were setting me up? I don't know how else to understand this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - you are not the problem here. My personal Talk page message was about my general frustrations and you were not named at all. It's not about you. Another editor is actually annoying me with their insistence on a certain citation format far more than you are -- that was the agenda I meant. Unfortunately, your bad-timed lengthy attack on the content via the Ostrogoths Talk Page lambasting the additions did not help with my mood. Especially since it was not at all what I asked you to do. Honestly, we would have made far more progress working via a sandbox (however one does that) on it but I figured that the live edits would generate quality work on the genetic section once you made your astute, well-substantiated points, even if it meant deleting some of the content or adding counter-argument via academic disputation. Why would I set you up and in what way? We've agreed and disagreed for years without major incident. I just found your approach distasteful in this last case and it coincided with me being annoyed with other editors. Whether you realize it or not, I have come to your defense more than once over the years, even when I disagreed with you. Honestly, it's shame we cannot just chat this out over a good Doppelbock, but I am in the States these days far more than I am in Europe and at my age, travel is just not as fun as it once was. Neither is editing, which is why I need to do exactly as you've stated. Step away -- thanks for encouraging me to do so. Happy editing. --Obenritter (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: this is surely going to come across as annoying, but there are things in this reply which you should think about. Should other editors (including whoever else has annoyed you) have to worry about timing their posts, or about whether they are doing what you told them to do? Anyway, I did not write an attack, and it is as simple as that, so there is my concern, take it or leave it. I made a big effort to help you. But yes WE have defended each other while also often disagreeing over the years, and I do appreciate your side in that story. I hope this goes both ways though! I would certainly love to have a beer with you so we have a strong point of agreement there, but I also now travel less. Communicating online is not as fun! As to taking breaks I think that is often a good idea for all of us, so I don't feel any need to argue for or against that. Do what works for you, and hopefully that will involve editing whether it be next week or next year.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Much respect Andrew. Keep doing what you do. --Obenritter (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavi (Germanic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civilis.

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhine-Weser Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Maurer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding here rather than Talk:Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Reverted_reversion to avoid personalizing, not looking to discourage any good faith newbie editors, but the editor in this thread has edit warring warnings from 2023 and a disruptive editing block from 2024, so I don't think that counts as a clueless newbie. Andre🚐 20:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - A Dutch speaker asked me to edit the page on Gondioc out of nowhere, but I have to confess some frustration with the sourcing. I performed some perfunctory grammatical edits etc. but since I am getting older and my brain mixes German and English, I am not the best person for that request. Anyway, the page is replete with a good share of citations that failed verification. If you want a good project, that page could use the work of a skilled editor/scholar. Obenritter (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: at the moment I have too many other things to do, but I can have a look and maybe help. I recently worked on the Burgundians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

		The Neutral Barnstar
		The Neutral Barnstar may be awarded to editors that have fixed articles that did not adhere to WP:NPOV. For consistently neutral, policy-compliant editing and balanced dispute resolution, plus a welcoming attitude toward newcomers. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Merci Michael!

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

On Haplogroup E-Z827: Revision history - Wikipedia and Haplogroup E-M35: Revision history - Wikipedia by User contributions for ~2025-34312-78 - Wikipedia ~2025-34043-75 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for ~2025-34312-78 - Wikipedia vandalized your other edits like Lombards, user is clearly not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia - Wikipedia ~2025-34054-55 (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you think 2025-34312-78 (talk · contribs) and Tollenser (talk · contribs) are the same?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Ermenrich ran through my mind but the IP was looking for genetics edits to revert and reverted edits on several articles involving, so I wouldn't like to make an accusation just on that basis. At first sight Tollenser is a better editor, willing to work on details, and has different interests to the IP, which seems "one purpose". "Problems" I have seen for Tollenser so far mainly with source quality, which is normal and understandable for newbies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I sort of wonder about edits like this . It does seem though that IPs are increasingly just picking up on the reversion of kind of random changes to the Wiki and running with them. I'm told that an IP that started attacking me after I reverted something an IP had added at Hyksos was probably completely unrelated to the first IP.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Yes I think there are all sorts of things that go on, but those kinds of edits about genetics are also common among good faith editors in the sense that smaller genetics studies often use terms in confusing ways. For example they'll name a signal in a small amount of data "Scandinavian" because it is vaguely northern European, and then editors will say a connection to Scandinavia has been proven. Especially the smaller studies (often 2 or 3 bodies only, and of course they don't have labels) are inherently difficult for us as a community to digest I think. OTOH adding to that we do also know there are internet discussions about how WP and academia are "woke", and trying to de-emphasize racial "facts" about Scandinavia which used to be "common sense". And you and I have both seen editors saying that they are waiting for the DNA to prove it soon. (To be clear if it does, then that will be great.) There are clearly at least some IP edits which we see that seem to be latching on to anything that mentions Goths or Scandinavia etc. Not sure that's what we see in all these cases though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you ever been through the genetics section at Hungarians? I feel like there’s a lot of bad stuff there, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through it. I just know that the topic of Hungarian origins has been highly politicized by far right affiliated labs.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: no, I hadn't looked. My first impression is that it is relatively bit, and largely about non-genetic information. I don't know if it would be easy to avoid that in this case, but generally I think it is best that documentary, archaeological and linguistic evidence come first, while genetics sections come afterwards and don't need to repeat too much from the other sections. I am not checking this example, but typically if they contain a lot of digression into other fields it can become a bit distorted or simplified. The genetics papers themselves are often very poor sources for summaries of other fields. I also see a lot of Y DNA remarks. In population genetics Y DNA represented a first generation of efforts, which is occasionally interesting, but not very easy to connect to history and the other fields. Still, in a Hungarian context there are those eastern looking lineages which I think are notable and genuinely discussed in connection with historical speculations. So no clear conclusions after a quick look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 20 § Category:Namur (city) on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)