User talk:The Mummy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia from Avnjay[edit]

Hi, The Mummy. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four squiggles (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AvnjayTalk 11:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Irad (Torah)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Irad (Torah) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

[... warning issued in error for page blanking used to be here ...]
Pseudomonas(talk) 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I moved it to the relevant discussion page. That Irad has nothing to do with the Jewish Irad (Torah). The Mummy (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Worth putting that in the edit summary, stop the likes of me tripping up over it. Carry on :) Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about. I was meaning to add summary but forgot. I have put a note in the Irad talk page to clarify that this isn't for the discussion of the Hebrew character also. The Mummy (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity[edit]

There's a standard Arabic form of Irad? Does the guy turn up in the Koran as well as in Tanach? Pseudomonas(talk) 13:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


You know, I am not sure. I do not know much about Arabic outside of the pre-Islamic Arabic gods. As for his presence in the Koran, I would have to do some research; it is likely that he does, however, the Koran misses out some events and characters in the Bible and Tanakh. The Mummy (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub Roman Britain[edit]

Good thorough reading, keep it up!! SADADS (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

English: Culture: Folklore[edit]

Good work on reverting user:Yorkshirian's changes. Bear in mind that he will revert it back to his biased and inaccurate version. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


I am thinking of reporting him to the moderators as he is turning that section into an uncyclopedic mess. Your revision looked professional and served as a nice summary of England folklore (funny how he used the fact that it should be a summary as his casus belli to ruin it). A summary should summarize its topic, which means giving a brief summary of history and context. The Mummy (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you're both giving a review of the site Anglo-Celtic.org, rather than information which is actually in the Wikipedia article. None of that stuff such as claiming Morris dancing is "Celtic", or x obscure pagan god is "Brythonic" or mentioning bagpipes and so on, was ever in the Wikipedia article. Ghmyrtle just added the Anglo-Celtic.org source to show that some of the folklore of England derives from influence of peoples older than the Angles and Saxons presence. If the reference is invalid, by all means it should be changed but it doesn't need such ultra indepth detail and the actual layout itself is now completely messy compared to all other sections, when the article currently under a review to reach GA status. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The length and depth is less than the history subsection and thus works as a goo summary of English folklore. The Anglo-Celtic source contains little that scholars would agree with and thus should not be use, however, this is not the point. The point is that your revision wasn't encyclopaedic or well written whereas the Sigurd edit was. It does not offer an indepth discussion of English folklore, it offers a good summary of it and is less biased - and you clearly do have a bias - than your revision. A summary should summarize the context, contest and history including the seperate strands, which is what that revision does. The Mummy (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have be less nuanced, this is too obsurantist. What is my percevied "folkloric bias"? My contention is the length and the disordered layout primarily. The history and complete culture sections are supposed to be around the same length as each other, rather than each part of the culture section. Compare for instance to the FA on Germany. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You are biased as your wording indicates. You give no information to how Arthurian entered English folklore, you used Anglo-Celtic.org to backup absurdist claims. The Germany article is not a good comparison as the editors have left out the folklore section entirely which shouldn't have been done as folklore is a valid part of culture...and thus I shall work on that section for Germany at a later date. And the cuisine and society subsections in the Germany article are about as long as the folklore section in the England artile. Anyway, both Sigurd and I have offered to work on it more so it can shortened, however, at present it is still the best revision that we have and is on a neutral ground in Celtic vs. Anglo-Saxon debate. It also follows the more accepted scholarly route which connects many folkloric tales and beings to English culture whilst connecting Arthurian myths to post-1066 England and Anglo-Norman poetry, pseudo-histories and romances. The Mummy (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Woody Allen. {{[1]}} ja_62 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Coeling[edit]

Hey The Mummy, I left a response to your recent edit regarding the Coeling at Talk:King Cole.--Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Population genetics of the British Isles[edit]

Hi there, you seem like something of an expert on the work by Oppenheimer, Sykes et al, so I'd be grateful for your views on these edits[2][3][4] and this discussion. Thanks! Pondle (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith[edit]

Both as an editor and an administrator I simply must insist that you assume good faith with me or any other user while using Wikipedia. This is getting on for a personal attack upon myself and my standing as an editor. It is precluded by our policy of civility and no personal attacks. If you think that it is "weasel edits" and "bias" that have enabled me to produce upwards of ten featured articles and seven good articles—pages independently scrutinized and agreed by process to be of the finest quality on the site—then, by independent scrutinization and a process of consensus to be granted the rights of an administrator, then I say Wikipedia is not for you.

Accusations of bias, such as this, are not pleasant for any editor; I'm concerned that if you're doing that with me, a multi-FA writing administrator with a sound history and reputation, then you are doing or may do worse with others. I don't have a bias (which I'll come on to) but I am demanding for quality writing and quality and open sources for editors to check material. This is part and parcel of our policies at WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:A, WP:CITE, WP:NOT etc etc, policies that need to be adhered to to the letter for something like British people, a good article that needs to keep its standards high.

I'm not interested in the merits of the material, but the validity of the statement has been undermined too often now. The loose wording; the blogs; the wrong wording; all contribute to a concern that the material could be flawed. Wikipedia gets a bad enough press as it is for publishing falsifications - a little more clarity and investigation to this matter would benefit us all, and contribute to a spirit of collaborative editting. Please do not assume bad faith or bias again. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians of Breton ancestry[edit]

Info non-talk.png

Category:Wikipedians of Breton ancestry, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I've nominated it for deletion again, see here. VegaDark (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

English / British brands[edit]

Hi, sorry, are you also editing with an IP number? I see you've now created a new category for English Brands, but your main interest seems to be enforcing an IP's deleting of the term "British" - is that so, or am I missing something? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no real argument at all. I logged in to my account so I could edit categories. There are enough English brands to make it a non-issue, I am afraid. And I am clearing up the categories because it seems that only English food is labeled as British whereas Scottish and Welsh are, respectively, labeled as only Scottish and Welsh. It is ridiculous and probably influence by some form of culinary British nationalism. It is nonsense to presume that English cuisine and British cuisine are the same thing. The Mummy (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be down to what the sources for each article say, not your POV. You need more than a statement that it's nonsense to do a bulk alteration like this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you about the difference between product and brand. Surely a brand is a marketing tool and depends on the market in which it is placed? Are we confusing this with place of manufacture, which might be a factory in England, Wales, Scotland, or wherever? I see you have mentioned "headquartered" in some of your edit summaries. Is this the defining characteristic? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(Thanks for your reply. Does that mean it's the location of the person or company that applied for the patent, at the time the product was invented, that's the defining characteristic? I think many editors may see English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish brands as a sub-set of "British Brands"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
Welcome back The Mummy! I see your campaign has once more left the launch-pad. :) The problem is that some of the things you're changing it on are Britain-wide and others aren't. If you're going to do this, at least do it carefully. Branston pickle for example is famed as a British product and even once ran a "British Branston" advert. It isn't your role as an editor to use Wikipedia to run campaigns. Each change must be reflected by referencable sources for that article. Will you self-revert them all and discuss or will I have to do it again? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Irreleant, and I see your campaign to allow things to be declared as Scottish but not English is still on. The fact that Branston pickle was created in England means it is English. It doesn't matter if it is available all over Britain, as I have told you before. Change it make, and it would mean that you have to consider making Earth brands, because Branston pickle is available in the US and other countries, likewise, Italian, French and Japanse brands are available UK-wide with no real reference to them being Japanese, French and Italian. Are they British brands, then?

Tell, me, James, where is the HQ of Branston and where was it founded? Nice try, with your bias. You are the one with the major bias not me, I just want things to be fair, you, however, are a simply wiki-dragon who thinks he owns the articles. Sorry, but that is how you come across. It seems that you have them all in your watch list so you can continue to have Scottish brands and no English brands. It strikes me as very pathetic, and please, James, get off your high horse. Will you actually bother reading my points, and answering your questions, who will you try to get every English brand moved for the English brands category again, only for me to have to re-create it and re-add them?

And Scottish brands often advertise themselves as British. Should we just delete that category too? The fact remains that their are brands in the UK with HQs and origins in England, these are English brands, a specific subset of British Brands. You have no case, James, and you never did. You are aware that English brands is a subcategory of British brands, James, or did you miss that? The Mummy (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "farm-shop brand", "village brand", "Cornish brand", "South Western brand", "English brand", "British brand" "EEC brand", "European brand", "Western brand" & etc., etc. But surely these are all nested one inside the other in the big Venn Diagram of commercial products? Rheir significance as labels lies only in how they are used to make a specific point, e.g. "the Japanese prefer American Brands to European ones"? I don't see "Earth Brands" as a very useful category. But hang on, I'm sure I've read somewhere that such products as CocaCola and McDonalds are in fact Global Brands? Oh dear. Do all brands have to have a unique patent? Um. Britsh Patent? European patent? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The main point is that their is a Scottish brands caetgory. Why is a Scottish brands category more valid than the English brands category? James up there, never enlightens us to why this is so.

Personally I am happy for there to be no subcategories. I just find it pathetically biased to have a Scottish brands category and not an English brands category or a Welsh category. I have no bias towards any nationality of brands, I just want fairness, that is all I am fighting for because wikipedia is filled with too many biases and cliques. Me? I am bias towards NPOV and fairness.

I guess people didn't fall for your ramblings and misrepresentation of what people have written. The articles had sources which stated where there country of origin was, I merely went with those sources to place them solely in the correct cuisine category, following the precedent created for labelling nationwide or worldwide food like Haggis (which is really English in origin but I'll leave it in the Scottish cuisine due to the fact it is their national food) as solely Scottish. The Mummy (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bubble and Squeak[edit]

Do you think B & S is not available in Scotland and Wales then? As the onus is on you for these articles, can you produce sources showing they are not? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are available in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Korea or Tanzania, they are English, as they were invented in England and are more commonly English. Sushi is not part of English cuisine, but it is available in England. You have no real leg to stand on. The Mummy (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it is a campaign. Are you aware of the NPOV rules in Wikipedia? Please direct me to a source that proves your assertion that B & S is an English food? In contrast, lots of sources (I found about 20 with a 10-second Google search) show it to be defined as British. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to be Encyclopedic, I am afraid. English cuisine is only as British as Welsh and Scottish cuisine. I look forward to you moving Welsh and Scottish food into the British category, too.

And if it is a campaign to clear up categories, then yes I am on a campaign. Subcategories are less cluttered and more efficient than one category filled with almost every article related to it. In truth the British cuisine category should only contain subcategories and ambiguous articles (e.g. ones that cannot be placed into subcategories due to the lack of information). None of my edits were on misc. articles but on ones that can easily be placed in the English cuisine subcategory.

I find your motivation suspect and, to be blunt and meaning no real offense, a little silly. Why does English cuisine have to be British whereas Scottish and Welsh aren't? You give no good reasons. The Mummy (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacking my motivation is an assumption of bad faith, as are the attacks you made on my talk page. I'm still waiting for the source that shows B & S is English-only. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

James, if you have read the page you would have seen the information that states it was invented in England, "a traditional English dish made with the shallow-fried leftover vegetables from a roast dinner." I merely categorized it based on the article and the fact that Scotland and Ireland have their own dish similar to it (implying that it is the English one). I do not need to give a source for following the previous writers of the article, sorry.

And sushi is available in England, Scotland and Wales. Is it British cuisine too? I am sorry, but you really have no case against my edits. The Mummy (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know they were your edits - thought I was correcting an unsigned user adding a non-existent category. Oh yes. In fact I was. Then you immediately addded the cat and announced the unsigned user was you. How strange! So are you (I assume it's "you" and not some other "you"?) also claiming that Branston pickle is English cuisine? And when have I challenged any edit to sushi, which is catted as Japanese Cuisine? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you purposefully misunderstanding what I write? I never said that you challenged any edit to the sushi page at all; I was simply using sushi as an example. OK, I will use another example. Italian dishes are available in Britian, so are they British cuisine too? Just because you can find things like Bubble and Squeak in Scotland, it does not mean that they are part of Scottish cuisine, unless a parallel invention of Bubble and Squeak occurred in that country.

Yes, Branston pickle was invented in England and originally marketed in only England. I think it is quite easy for me, and anyone, to say it is an English brand, and a part of English cuisine.

So give me sources that claim that English cuisine is the same cuisine as Scottish, Irish and Welsh. Likewise, you would have to classify traditional Italian, Chinese and Indian - and no, I am not talking about Anglo-Indian which is English cuisine - dishes as British because they are available in Britain and are the most popular foods. The Mummy (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If Italian or Japanese foods are adapted for a British palate, then yes, those would be British foods. Balti (which you modified as an IP user) is a good example of an adaptive foreign food. Sushi has also been adapted for Western markets, so if there was sourced material showing that one type of Sushi is only available in Britain, it could be catted as British, or in England, it could be catted as English. A better example is Chicken tikka masala, which everyone agrees was invented here - the current article wrongly claims this to be in Scotland, as most sources say London, but I am not going to enter that debate right now. The problem with the changes you've been making is that the sources in most cases say they are UK-wide and you were changing that to England-only. This is in the case of products or foods that clearly originated here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that I, and people like me, have won out against your bias, James. Nice try attempting to stop the correct categorization of Bubble and Squeak. I guess your views really didn't agree with that of the majority. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The Mummy (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to the Haggis Article.[edit]

I see you are in the middle of a disagreement about English cuisine. Please confine your discussion to the relevant talk pages and refrain from pointy edits such as this one on the Haggis article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good lord. I forgot about you food NAZIs, until I decided to read my profile again, to see if I missed anything. Actually I have given up trying to correct your's and James's bias and nonsense in those articles. I actually have more important things to do that worry about the origin of brands.

But my point stands that brands based in England and created in England are English brands, just as you lot say that Scottish brands based and created in Scotland are Scottish brands. Maybe some day a valued wikipedian with enough time on his hands will clear up that pathetic bias, but I'll not be that wikipedian. The Mummy (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani People[edit]

Hello mate. There has been some continued Persian Vandalism on the Azerbaijani People page. Source 40 (Encyclopaedia Brittanica) clearly states that they are a Turkic People, but someone keeps changing the page to say Turkic-Speaking. This is both intellectually dishonest and blatant misrepresentation of the source material. To me, it seems in line with the efforts of the numerous Persian nationalists out there, who aim to distance the Azerbaijanis from the Turks and make them seems closer to them, I'm guessing for various politically expansionist agendas. I have noticed one of your replies on the page, where you attempt to combat such misrepresentation of the sorce material. I must admitt that I am neither an expert on Central Asian people, and despite my time here as a Wikipedia Editor, I am no expert on the rules and workings of this site. So I would realy appreciate your help in finding out who keeps valdalising that page and properly reporting them - I think one Persian Nationalist editor on the talk page has already been banned from here. Also, since you seem to be far better informed than me on the subject of the Azerbaijani people, I think it would also great for wikipedia and everyone who visits if you can review the page for any more inaccuracies and valdalism which i might have missed. Many thanks for all your time and help. King regards, SaSH (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again mate. Thank you for the reply, and I'd like to apologise myself for this late reply as I've just come back from an Easter visit to my family.
I completely agree with what you said, and the sad thing is that many Persian Nationalists are infact also into the genetics pseudo-sciences from my experience - especially as it provides legitimacy to their dillusions of being descended directly from the ancient Persians without any Arab or outside heritage - as if that's the worst thing.
You also make an excellent point regarding Ethnicity. I myself am a big proponent of the notion that it is based far more on individual Self-Identification as opposed to genetics. Genetically speaking, we are all of mixed heritage - even the ancient empires many take false pride in claiming descent from were mixed. Also, often the two have no correlation. Then you have today's multicultural world where everyone picks and chooses from a wide variety of cultural traits.
I strongly believe that these Persian Nationalists are worst than the BNP, and all nationalist movements have very little connection to reality.
Sorry for the slight ranty nature of this, but it really gets on my nerves when these Nationalists present there skewed propoganda as fact on one of the most respected and relied-upon internet sources. Is there any way to find out who has been making these edits, as I am still rather a novice here? The article is locked, so it must be a registered user - maybe we can report them or something. The article has been editted again to say "Turkic Speaking", so I'll change it now.
Thanks again mate for all your help. SaSH (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Birds[edit]

Thanks for the apology, but what in the world were you suggesting by saying you'd call a 'mod' in? I presume you mean one of my colleagues, but just for one revert? Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ===Birds (avian theropods}===
  • //stratigraphy.science.purdue.edu/charts/Timeslices/5_JurCret.pdf Jurassic-Cretaceous timescale], at the website of the subcommission for stratigraphic information of the ICS

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my robotic friend! I am on it! Just a slip-up, after correctly modifying the other articles in the series. The Mummy (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)