User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A T. Rex waving its forearms around at all the small furry mammals

New User Talk Page Started 27 May 2013

(all archives are on the View history tab. They are not being archived a second time, to save bandwidth. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC))


Contents

Henricus[edit]

Please note that I reverted your edit. Currently, Henricus is on the NRHP list for Henrico county but not for Chesterfield county. I have no knowledge of the subject, but we should be consistent. If it is in Chesterfield county, it should also be on the Chesterfield county NRHP list.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you reverted me again. Then please correct the lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt about it, Henricus is still in Chesterfield County, and any sources saying it is in Henrico County are erroneous. Or perhaps dated older than 1749. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Henricus.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Ridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

discussion alert[edit]

Hi Til, Knowing your interest in dealing with bias on WP, I thought you might like to know about a discussion currently going on at Talk:Humiliation of Christ, where the issue revolves around how widely a doctrine is held within the "Protestant" tradition. The claim is that it encompasses all of Protestantism, while the question is asked if or how far it goes beyond just Calvinism, the possible bias then being whether or not the claim is overreaching. I for one would like to see a wider engagement among interested editors. If you'd like to watch or participate, I would welcome it. Thanks, Evenssteven (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers[edit]

Hi there. Take a look at my two sets of arguments - the first holistic and subjective, and the second (post scriptum) more rationalist and objective. At Wikipedia, most editors have formed a strong consensus that published sources, such as books and newspapers, matter more than the Old Wisdom, which I think is the whole point of the Grandmother's movement. However, we must work with what we have. Good luck! Bearian (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Socking[edit]

You could do me a favor. I feel like I'm chasing my tail with all the blocks I'm handing out. And I'm recovering today from being ill yesterday, so I'm not at my best, whatever that is. Could you give me the lowest and highest IP addresses in each range so I can calculate what would happen if the two ranges were blocked? Of course, they may then edit outside the ranges, but at least it would be a start. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and I really appreciate someone with tools to fight this disruption. I haven't seen things this exhausting for quite a while, this one person in Bosnia has taken up most of my editing day, plus they think I am Kurdish! Several of the IP addresses are at the SPI page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaushka and I will try to add the newer ones to that page. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lullubi[edit]

How does Lullubi fits under category History of Azerbaijan? --HistorNE (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting sockpuppet edits[edit]

Please note that until an SPI confirms that HistorNE is User:Shuashka, you should not be removing his contributions to article talk pages. Furthermore, you should be reverting his article edits only if they are themselves incorrect. We are allowed to revert indefinitely blocked editors simply because they are made by said editor, but we have to be very certain. Looking at their histories, HistorNE and Shuashka may well be different people--they share a certain common set of interests, but the editing style does not appear to be identical. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to be careful when reverting someone as a sockpuppet, unless the connection is absolutely crystal clear. On the SPI, please provide specific diffs from Shuashka and diffs from the IPs/HistorNE that show that they are the same person; that's the fastest way to end this if it is, in fact true. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HistorNE has already admitted that he is the IP-hopping address in the SPI case that was blocked for 48 hours, whose behavior is problematic enough standing alone. I just added some diffs a couple minutes ago as evidence he is the same as Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, he admitted to being the range of IPs, but so far, no one has confirmed/agreed that all of that links back to Shaushka. The problem is that if it's not the same person, and you keep reverting the edits, then the person has no way to discuss the matter. At this point, both of you need to discuss on Talk: Lullubi about what cats should and shouldn't be there (though the burden is on HistorNE to show that a change is beneficial). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted him on Lullubi because I have been following the edit wars by the same users as they proceed from each page to the next in turn as it gets locked down, and I have little doubt it is an indef-blocked user - not because I disagree with the cats and other insignificant changes he is making. But now I see that it is not safe to go past 3RR until somebody gets around to confirming that yes, this is a sock puppet. Gotta love it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Young Ones (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

New SPI[edit]

I've opened a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imorthodox23 regarding a user you've previously tagged. If you have any other evidence, it may be useful. Regards, CMD (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Punic language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you!, I'll take up that reccomendation!!! Nigerien not Nigerian (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Misc. Exodus questions[edit]

I don't know if you'd be interested, but I asked something of what I was wondering about at [1] I don't have an answer, but I have a suspicion some people haven't been asking the right questions... Wnt (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

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

Caucasian Iberia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Moschi
Colchians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mingrelian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WP: Pointy - Your removal of "tepid" in relation to Beatles song "Ob Li Da Do Do"[edit]

I wouldn't want you to think I disliked The Beatles so I thought I'd let you know I am a musician and can play these Beatles songs which I do like:

Don't Let Me Down. Learnt by me by playing along to the roof top concert thingy.

Help

Twist and Shout (including the tasty riff. Learnt from the recording rather than out of a book - makes a difference doing it that way)

She Loves You

A Day In The Life

and there are some others I learnt.

But I swear that I will never learn Ob Li Doo Doo. I must come across as anti-Beatles but that isn't the case - just don't believe that song should be in the reggae article regardless of what that idiot author Chen wrote in his book and his false claim it was an early rock-reggae song and which provides the so-called ref (lie) - which now means that I'll never be able to remove its destructiveness to the reggae article and not to mention its hijacking of the reggae article to promote the Beatles. Oh well.

Article equality is not possible until we judge a book not by its cover but by the self-serving ego its author. Still nice to see you are still doing your thing even if I do question your motives in this case. Anyway no one is for this mortal coil forever and I'm going to leave instructions with my friend's daughter that when we are all dead that she is to remove the so-called reggae influenced song, lol

Sluffs (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really that passionate for or against that song or the Beatles, I try to look at it objectively through WP:VER. However, any "reggae" that came out in the year 1968, the first year there was such a thing, would have to be described as "early reggae" - right? Surprisingly enough, and contrary to popular assumption, there were no songs explicitly associating reggae with the Rastafari movement for a couple of years after that. Those first early songs from 1968 were about things that might be considered "slack" from the later roots perspective. Listen to some earliest reggae songs from 1968 mentioned in the article - Nanny Goat, Long Shot Bust Me Bet, and some US stars like Johnny Nash were also quick to get in on this sound with songs like his Hold Me Tight... Listen to all those songs I just named, and "Ob-la-di" doesn't really sound too musically different from other early reggae that came out in 1968. But all of these songs are a far cry from later reggae, or today's reggae. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles issue was really a direct result of other editors and admin suddenly taking an interest in who was doing what to the reggae articles. It was admin Michig who said "welcome" when I first joined in 2009 and expressed his satisfaction that someone was taking an interest in the older reggae articles (I think U-Roy was the first article I edited). The reason I went to the Beatles article was because Michig reverted my edits which had removed the Emporio and Laserlight releases from the Dekker discogarphy. I pride myself on reading inbetween the lines and I imagine that Dekker didn't get any publishing royalties from his early hits and was relying on the royalties from the labels mentioned who also didn't have access to his early hits and therefore were releasing newer material and I believe Michig had also come to the same conclusion. I have stated before that I couldn't care less about the financial rewards or lack of rewards for any artist. Artists have a main body of work that they are known for and all the rest is extraneous. All main namespace articles for any subject should only include the work that established the subject and all extraneous work should be secondary (as in another article namespace is created) or excluded.

I used his criteria (as set down by his reversion of my Dekker edits) when I went to the Beatles article and was told by the Beatles editors that if I wanted to include Pinky and Perky's version of the Yellow Submarine then I should create a new article or find somewhere else to place the release(s) as the Beatles main namespace was out of bounds. This proved to me that once again that some articles are protected by editors and admin against budget releases and false information yet the reggae articles are not. I always remind my West Indian friends that their slave ancestors had no choice and that caucasian people are the ones who decided that. So I'm not surprised on a caucasian majority site that this is still the case. Freedom for colored people is more than a law saying you are free and equal. It must always be confirmed in one's own heart by action that is not subject to external restriction or pressure to conform to an alien mode of behavior by those who are not colored. This is why I always say openly my favorite food is curry. Never will anyone make me ashamed of that. Pungent food it may be but it tastes great me.

I'm a lone voice fighting for the right to create quality articles for reggae, the blues and other related colored articles. I am actually determined that if by example I show that it is possible to create quality reggae, Indian, African, hip hop, etc, articles then other colored editors will join the site and help me. Though at the moment all I'm getting locally (yes people where I live watch what I do - caucasian and colored) is Asian shop-keepers looking at me with eyes that say "don't cause trouble with white people because we have a good relationship with them". To which I stare back at them with a "trust me I would punch you on the nose for racism and stupidity as readily as I would a caucasian person". With the local caucasian people some have actually said "You're not coming back" (as in goodbye you) and others have said "we throw stuff out we don't want" (meaning "because you are a colored man that doesn't behave and know your place therefore we are going to throw you out with the rubbish")

Still enough talking to you my German joker; not that you are German - though your are probably someone intelligent who knows what your username represents. I've actually been to a Strauss concert where the LPO played Til Eulensiegel and I've read Goethe's Faust. But enough bragging that I finished "On The Road" in one day and that I read in a year what others read in a lifetime and its time to venture off to do some real work which considering that I can actually touch type at a good speed without having to look at the keyboard makes me a stupid idiot who is working on an encyclopedia for absolutely nothing. Now that is proof of lack of intelligence. lol

If you really want to strike a blow for equality and freedom then let me remove that Beatles song from the reggae article. But I know the real reason why you won't and it isn't because of WP:Pointy.

Sluffs (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I see my race as the human race, and as I feel the inside of the cup is more important than the outside, I don't see myself as really having any color (or altrnatively, all colors)... But I will confide with you that I had noticed something similar to what you are complaining of with a few of the editors here, when I chose the id of Til Eulenspiegel... I thought if this world is going to be much like the 13th century Holy Roman Empire, then who, in this world, would I be? Now you are the first person to get that much explanation from me. I have never edited much in the Beatles area and don't know all the stories there, but I'm still not entirely clear yet on how or why removing Ob-la-di from the reggae article is striking a blow for freedom and equality? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you seek power over other editors. Wishing to control their behavior by removing their legitimate edits. Because you won't say which country you're from or your real name. Which makes you a coward and someone who should not really be here. You could be Jewish rasta or a German nazi but we will never know will we because like most cowards you hide behind anonymity. Go to my user page and you'll see I'm from the UK and that I'm mixed race and I set out my aims and some life experiences to help other editors understand where I'm coming from. You don't because like a coward you wish to influence and control others without extending to them the same rights you have taken for yourself. My real name is on a link at the bottom of my user page. A coward you are - a coward you will remain. You are the opposite of everything this encyclopedia presently represents and what it may potentially become. Never call yourself a member of the human race until you find the courage to declare who you are to the rest of the human race.

Sluffs (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty harsh! I thought we were having a friendly conversation here... Many users here "play their cards close to their chest", and being "subtle" or "discreet" or trying to remain neutral is generally not seen as a bad thing... In fact, when I first came to wikipedia in the early days, it was a requirement. They were very strict about what you could put on your userpage. They didn't want anyone declaring any allegiances. Checking all the resistance and objections to the idea of permitting "userboxes" for anything other than a language at first should show you what happened... It all got pushed against and broken down by people who can't help but declare their allegiances, who can't even imagine not declaring their allegiances. To me, it's like we're working on an encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica contributors, we're all ostensibly on the same team and taking a scholarly stance requires a degree of impartiality. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, if I were a German Nazi, do you think I would be a bureaucrat with community trust at the Amharic wikipedia project? የማይመስል ወሬ ነው ይኸው! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymity is not an option in neutrality. It is anathema to neutrality. Any user that practices anonymity on Wikipedia and then declares neutrality is denying other contributors their right to judge that claim. Cowards hide in the shadows and neutrality is about light. Other editors are at a disadvantage when you don't say which country you are from. You are then denying them the right to prove your edits or reversion of their edits are done without cultural bias. There are only two reason that an editor would lie or deny the truth of their country of origin to other editors. One is that they wish to exercise power over those who nationality or cultural bias is visible and who's nationality or culture they may object to. You can replace nationality and culture with a whole range of other words like: color, religion, political beliefs, gender, etc. Secondly an editor who chooses the cowardice of anonymity under some misguided self-delusion that the action constitutes neutrality is lying to everyone and shouldn't claim that right. Let me do that edit on the Beatles because it has a cultural bias - Chen who provided the details was biased in his writing towards linking that Beatles song to Reggae. I will create a separate article called "The Beatles Reggae Songs" and I will write it myself. Be smart and let me undo the "quality" issue (basically this is the main namespace for reggae - how many times do I have to say it) and like The Beatles main namespace should be given the same level of protection as far as to what is included. I could write a decent article on Reggae once the extraneous tenuously related music is removed to a different namespace. Oh no. That's right - this is just a reggae article - a music that is so limited and created by a bunch of simple people who had a little mess around with some rhythms and invented a temporary splash in the caucasian charts during the 1960s and 1970s. Reggae is not a dead music - people in the West Indies still create music though looking at the Reggae article you wouldn't think so. So much real reggae can be included in the article. Its the real reggae music (iWayne, Morgan Heritage, Beres Hammond, Lady Saw, etc) and what it encapsulates that is missing from this article; all for the preference of a bunch of people who want to pretend that Eric Clapton made Bob Marley into a world wide phenomena and that Desmond Dekker owes his career to the opening line of that bloody song "Desmond had a barrow in the market place" - just thought I'd get everyone singing that - hows it feel. Annoying hey! Imagine how it feels to any West Indian who goes to the bloody reggae article to read about their bloody country's music.

Stop being an anonymous coward - tell us truly who you are and where you are from then I can judge (and everyone else that you've been enforcing your so called neutrality upon for 6 years) your cultural bias (which is in everyone) and your country of origin (no one has been born in space yet). Then let me do that edit because I've told who I am and where I come from and that I grew up with my rum drinking; chicken and rice eating bloody West Indian friends. I've also told you that I know a little bit about reggae and though I am not an expert I do have the ability to turn reggae articles from low quality to high quality. I offer as my proof the edit history of the Ernest Ranglin article and the Prince Buster article. Now let me do the reggae article and if you want to enforce a Wikipedia policy upon me then know that I don't accept the validity of enforcement from any anonymous entity including God. So sling yer hook and let me turn the reggae article around. I've got enough on my plate locally with every thing I say here being scrutinized by a bored but interested public whose lives and names are a mystery to me but at least I know their country of origin.

Before I go: "Desmond had a barrow in the market place" how about that for a great piece of reggae scholarship and impartiality. lol

Sluffs (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion is private, as a certain Famous Person once said. Colour doesn't matter to me as I already explained and for our purposes here shouldn't matter to anyone in my opinion. A tribe is very different from a colour, it involves more cultural aspects that are on the inside of the person, not the outside, people of the same tribe or language can be of different hues, so I have no problem with anyone self-identifying with a particular tribe if they want. I have indicated what languages I speak, which is all wikimedia ever wanted us contributors to reveal about ourselves in the first place. Please do not press me further to reveal personal or private details about myself without reading WP:OUTING. (It is a blockable offense, I have seen people blocked for doing the same and would hate to see you blocked for it).
As for the "Beatles reggae" song, wow are you ever obsessed with it. The main reason reggae doesn't have the material you want to see on modern artists, is probably just because nobody has added it yet. Nothing should stop you from adding it, and I do believe you may just be the best qualified editor to do so. (I'm most familiar with 80s reggae myself) So by all means, go right ahead and add something good - I'd love to see it. And since I don't feel quite as strongly passionate about the Beatles song as you do, I'll say go ahead and remove it, if you feel that strongly about it - but it is still taking away information about how quickly Jamaican reggae spawned big-name imitators in other countries after it was invented, so someone else could possibly object. I don't honestly know what point the Beatles were trying to make with the song, most likely they were trying to cash in on any fad that seemed "hip", and note that the Mothers of Invention essentially made this point with their "answer album" to Sgt Peppers entitled We're Only In It For The Money (heavy album btw)... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Desmond Dekker at that particular time was the main competitor with the Beatles on the British charts. Everyone seems to agree that the weird line about 'Desmond' is some kind of reference to that situation, but I'm not sure if anyone knows precisely what it means or what they were tripping on when it was written! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Smile act of randomness[edit]

718star.svg
Hello Til Eulenspiegel, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Those 75. IPs[edit]

Socks of Ararat arev, you may recall Frost778 (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock of his and for edit warring with 75. Ips[2]. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone suggested earlier that it was he... I wasn't completely sure, because the earlier "Frost" modus operandi IIRC seemed to be endless useless warring over positioning of templates and aesthetic things, whereas this user's m.o. seemed more like debating historical points and slightly more open to discussion (but they still seem to have trouble learning how to find sources that actually mention the article topics!) But this could still be the same person who is just trying to be generally troublesome on different levels. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That's often the case. The IP is in fact more obvious a sock. You'll also find puppetmasters using socks to war with each other at times. Anyway, as you may have noticed, a range block has also been imposed, and I'm finding more sources for Nairi. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Til Eulenspiegel. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_July_5#Sociology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Miss Bono(zootalk) 17:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jamaicans in Ethiopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tewahedo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a chance for a Effing reference?[edit]

Can I get a chance for a Effing reference? Just undid, as I am trying to provide the refs! --J. D. Redding 16:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I though being tagged for a reference since 2010 was enough to remove it, and the other unreferenced sentence, I waited 24 minutes after you re-added it without a reference, before re-removing it. But I will probably wait until you are done editing the article before doing anything else to it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just come in to improve it (Not an article that is highly visited by me); takes a bit of time to c.e./write [and get sources]. Removing info in generally not good, unless patent nonsense.
And why did you remove the associated theory? 'Cause it's marxist? Just cause of the tag? Very odd. --J. D. Redding 17:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because of the tag, showing it was unreferenced since 2010. I had no idea it was Marxist. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

For catching my spelling error on "disambiguation." -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Sticky[edit]

There we go again, this is not a sockpuppet or whatever i use this user in arabic wiki while "kendite" was my old user name and i don't use it in arabic wiki.. as for Hadramout, i don't know what the Sultanate has to do with any ancient history not mention the lies in the rest of the article like the ghassanids migration from there!--يوسف حسين (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nineveh[edit]

Hi, regarding your revert, disputed territories include those inhabited by non-Arabs in general and not only Kurds. Secondly the ruins of Nineveh lie in the Mosul District which is not disputed. Don't forget that Nineveh flourished and died centuries before there was Kurdish or Kurdistan.--Kathovo talk 16:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nineveh flourished and died centuries before there was Kurdish or Kurdistan" - But the article Kurdish people states that they have basically always lived in those same hills and mountains since time immemorial, even if their name was spelled different or if they had several names at the same time. But contradicting Kurdish people, I keep hearing from people like you that Kurds moved into the region recently. So according to you, when exactly did they move in and where did they move from? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
According to Morony's Iraq After the Muslim Conquest pp 265-266 Kurds only formed a small minority along the eastern fringes of modern Iraq during the late Sassanid period. Their main concentration after the Islamic conquests were in Jibal province (EOI "Djibal") including western Media and southern Azerbaijan. From what I understand Kurds started moving westwards simultaneously with the Turks as their emirates started to appear in eastern Anatolia from the 10th century in the then predominantly Christian cities of Diyarbakir, Ani, Mardin etc. since Kurdish and Turkish toponyms were absent there previously. On the specific region of Nineveh you can find here a fairly detailed account of Yazidi settlement in the 13th century.--Kathovo talk 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So that's not long enough ago to justify including the Kurdish form of "Nineveh" in the lede? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I find the whole discussion trivial, but for the sake of argument Nineveh was never inhabited by Kurds in its history, Closest major Kurdish settlements are in Kalak and Sheikhan some 50Km from Mosul. Anyway if it was up to me I would have removed Turkish and Latin as well.--Kathovo talk 13:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Category reverts[edit]

Hey Til, I have no idea why you reverted my removal of Category:18th-century Indigenous painters of the Americas from Category:18th-century Native Americans, etc. The descriptions clear state what these categories contain. The Native American cats are for indigenous peoples of the United States, so the "Indigenous painters of the Americas" would not be a subcat of a Native American cat, since the overwhelming majority of individuals in the "Indigenous painters" cats are not from the United States. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There is nothing whatsoever in the term "Native American" that ties it to the United States. Native People of North and South America are Native American, and this is actually a preferable term to "Indigenous" which has racist connotations, especially outside the US, as explained in Native American name controversy. I know plenty of Natives who bristle at the term "indigenous", have never heard any complaint about "native" and that is the preferred term. Please stop making these unilateral changes to the existing cats without wider discussion. There is no more suitable category to list the Painters by century as Native Americans. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
As can be seen from Category:16th-century Native Americans in particular, these categories are not exclusive to US territory, there was not even any such thing at that time anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been so much discussion on this topic here at Wikipedia, it beggars the imagination. But, if you want, let's take the conversation to Category talk:Indigenous painters of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Mesopotamia and Kuwait[edit]

Various sources include Kuwait as part of Mesopotamia, for example:

Quote: The Mesopotamian region encompasses present-day Iraq and Kuwait.

..the region of southern Mesopotamia in what is today southern Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of western Iran.

Am I allowed to add Kuwait to the Mesopotamia page? Agrso (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to mention briefly in the appropriate subsection that the expanded definition of "Mesopotamia" has included Kuwait more recently. However, what you were doing is adding to the lede paragraph, faulty information that "Mesopotamia" originally meant Kuwait and later came to mean the land lying between the Tigris and Euphrates, which is chronologically backwards. And you were using and improper synthesis of sources to argue this. Also the proper place to discuss this with all editors interested in Mesopotamia would be Talk:Mesopotamia, not here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Agrso talk 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your post at the Hogan's Hero's thread at the humanities desk. It was more salient than any of the other ones there and it brought a smile to my day. Around here that is always a nice thing so thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to say F-Troop and M*A*S*H weren't realistic or accurate shows either! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
OK the F-Troop mention makes me laugh out loud :-D I'm so old I watched that comedy in its original airings. Larry Storch could be HIlarious. Happy editing whenever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 00:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • during the 13th century BC, or the Assyrian war god [[Ninurta]]. An Assyrian queen [[Shammuramat]]) is known to be historical, and for five years from 810 BC ruled the [[Neo-Assyrian Empire]] as

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann[edit]

You may want to look at the ANI discussion on this editor. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Rugby[edit]

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. A user has been adding original research and soapboxing to Rugby union in Ethiopia, some of it quite jingoistic. This was explained to him here, a discussion which the user has been repeatedly linked to yet refused to engage in. He has instead resorted to knee-jerk reverting and posting misleading tags in userspace. As one of the more active contributors on WikiProject Ethiopia, would you mind taking a look when you have the time? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Liburnians[edit]

I am astonished by your reversion, with the comment "not really an improvement". The pretentious link ethne redirects to Ethniu. You surely cannot think that the intended meaning? Moonraker (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be "ethnon" in the singular, I don't know what sloppy grammarian wrote that in its present form. That should not link to Ethniu, but the changes overall were not helpful, inserting a crosshatch before the section header messes up the format, and changing "AD 634" which complies with standard format, to "the year 634" which doesn't, there were no real improvements here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course, about the stray #, which was a typo and needed to be undone. However, "ethnon" (which does not have an article at ethnon) would be just as pretentious, and I see you have not undone your addition of a link to Ethniu. What correction do you intend? Moonraker (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"Ethnon" may be considered "erudite" being a Greek concept, but I like it for the time period concerned as perhaps the most accurate concept - "ethnic group" is a more modern concept that goes with modern times when ethnicities are all mixed together and more hybridized, and doesn't do as well as "ethnon" to bring out the picture of intertribal relations among more homogenous peoples ca 200 BC, that are at once ethnic groups, nations, and societies to themselves. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

On Intef I and Mentuhotep I[edit]

I just saw your correction to the article on Intef I and I believe that it runs in contradiction to what is reported in Darell Baker's "Encyclopedia of the Pharaohs". To be more precise, D. Baker indicates the following in the article concerning Mentuhotep I, the direct predecessor of Intef I (I quote): "Mentuhotep was almost certainly master of no more than the Theban nome and the three nomes from Thebes south to the border with Nubia at Elephantine. His power to the north stopped at the border to the Coptite nome". Now this means that Mentuhotep I had triumphed over Ankhtifi (or his successor) during his own reign since Ankhtifi controlled the nome of Nekhen, south of Thebes. This also means that Intef I ruled over these territories when he accessed to the throne and that the essential of the conflict at the time of his reign took place not with Ankhtifi to the south but with the Coptite nomarch Tjauti to the north of Thebes. Intef I's successes over Tjauti brought the border to Abydos which was then bitterly fought for by Intef II and Mentuhotep II. Could you indicate me the sources claiming that Intef I waged war to the south of Thebes ? It seems that the stele of Tjauti and the Gebel Tjauti inscription support the view that Intef I waged war to the north and thus that the south was already under his control when he accessed the throne. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Most all sources I could find place Ankhtifi as a contemporary of pharaoh Intef I Sehertawy who opposed him, but they say Sehertawy managed to get those three nomes to the south by the end of his reign. Of course Sehertawy also campaigned to the north against Tjauty. Hardly any sources put Ankhtify in the reign of "Mentuhotep I" - for whom there is no definite tangible evidence or record of any kind, so I tend to agree with those who are skeptical from the lack of evidence that "Mentuhotep I" was an actual pharaoh, and not a later invention. Since I would like to hear from anyone on the subject, can this discussion be moved to Talk:Intef I? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to the talk page of Intef I. See my answer there. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I just replied on the talk page of Intef I and who greatly appreciate to have your opinion on the matter. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how useful any of that is[edit]

re: wer'e both editing, but the fact is there's a quandry.... what territory in what decade. Since two references are explicit in mentioning the Virginia Corridor, I stand corrected. // FrankB 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: My user page[edit]

Hello, no hard feelings. I hope this edit (made before I noticed your message) is alright. Graham87 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shenandoah County, Virginia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catawba and Six Nations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Native American tribes in Virginia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buffalo and Wild geese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Native American tribes in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American buffalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

John Rolfe[edit]

Hi Til, I notice that you reverted my removal of an external link from John Rolfe ([3]). I am somewhat at a loss as to why you found my explanation "rm WP:REFSPAM" inadequate - the link www.saberqureshi.com, which was inserted as a reference, leads to a SEO firm, and has nothing to do with John Rolfe at all. The editor who added the link has been adding saberqureshi.com references to several pages; in most cases there is some connection with the page content, but I really do not think that it is a reliable source at all, and in the case of this particular article, there isn't even anything about Rolfe on the page that is linked in the reference. There is a short, unsourced text about Rolfe on http://www.saberqureshi.com/flog.html - however, again there is no indication at all as to why this would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. I have posted to the talk page of the editor who has been inserting these links, and referred them to WP:RSN if they disagree about the usefulness of the reference, but I really feel that this is classic WP:REFSPAM. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

BLOND HAIR[edit]

The first sentence changed by you is strictly from 3 sources listed, and they all state in ALL of Asia, any ethnic group it many children and environmental factors

Mentioning ethnic groups and how they are lower or higher is irrelevant and not supported, because especially the two you mentioned are not the highest, this paragraph was just a summary it doesn't even mention northern Middle East or Israel, and that's what the first sentence you keep changing it back to is trying to lead people into thinking that only the mentioned ones are the highest

I did studies over this, and Nuristani and Kalash are the same, Kalash are a extension of them and so are so many other groups and it involves a lot of countries then just one, so mentioning the main group is enough, because the rest just obstructs the flow and the sentence is also not grammatically correct

The 10% of tajiks mentioned, the sources were checked and other sources contraindicate that one source, so its too risky to post a exact percentage

Also these groups of people that you added fit the description of sun exposure and malnourishment, that's why you only see it in children

Also saying blond hair can be found in any part of Asia doesnt mean they all have blond hair, it just means it can appear in any ethnic group or country


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursingxmajor (talkcontribs) 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) 
Er, did you actually just write that and say "not grammatically correct"?! The information you added about hippies in India may end up getting removed from the blond article also, if the reference doesn't actually make any point in relation to the article topic, blond hair; see WP:SYNTH... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

it does mention it, because in old language, during British rule, they used words of appearance to describe people, and has quotes of peopleNursingxmajor (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought the hippies would have been like 20 years after British rule ended... I still don't follow your point. Does the reference supporting the fact that hippies were in India, actually say anything about blond hair? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I guess you're saying the refs do mention blond hair, right? No problem then. But I know for sure the British rule did not coincide with the hippie movement... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

yeah hippies are separate from the British rule and mentioned in a different sentence, and i moved the sources where they actually belong, i usually tend to put them at the bottom of the paragraph where sources are usually placed, but i changed it, "grammatically " was done by autofix, that paragraph is not just about the British only the middle two sentences are

I have been studying Asian anthropology for a while, and like it mentions throughout the page in other sections as well malnourishment and sun exposure changes your hair to blond, which darkens as melanin in continuously deposited in skin, hair and eyes as the person ages and as they get nutrition, i am currently in the health field, the two groups that you listed fit this category perfectly, meanwhile the whole page is talking about genetics that cause blond hair. Nuristan is among the poorest in South Asia, i am very familiar with Pamiri, Nuristanis, and Kalash, so far they have shown no genes that cause blond hair or have come from outsiders (remember they said they were supposedly Greek or Illyrian and DNA testing proved they weren't, almost every test they have done turned out negative) so consider that, i can give your sources that mention hair color change with factors and about Nuristan state as of now and how malnourished their children are and the death tolls, its a hub spot for war scenes. For the past four years my focus has been northern South Asia, and all the groups that exist within. I want you to consider that and look into that before i change anything because i dont want to keep reverting info. that gets reverted back and forth nonstop. I have also come across sources like the first source of yours that are on a webpage and a random person interprets genetic studies, do you know how hard it is to interpret genetics? trust me there is never a exact percentage. Iv been looking at this page for 2 months, looking into sources ...etc before i ever changed anything i did consider adding people like Nuristanis or Tajiks or just sticking with the proven tracings and genetics that cause blond hair, because if we mention two groups with blond hair caused by environmental factors and no outsider links, might as well mention the rest, which will consist of almost all ethnic groups of Asia. The numbers in these groups are also not high enough in general to be concerned with and is a guessing game if the kid will end up with blond hair just like majority of Asian communities. Same amounts can be found in any community and in general if you notice this whole page is just hitting main points. Nursingxmajor (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also the second source that states 10% of tajiks have blond hair, that book/source is old, the 10% came from Russians that occupied that region during the soviet war, and they have since migrated back, currently they make up less then 0.4% of Tajikstan. I will probably change that later, just read about it on Tajikstan where it is mentions it as well. I dont feel like removing other peoples sources, so look into that too before i do anything later on. This is also mentioned in the contraindicated sources i was talking about earlier (about the percent). For four years been studying Central/South Asia (anthropology in total 9-10 years) like crazy and can throw all this stuff your way like i been doing with every user wasting time. Nursingxmajor (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

Please remember to be civil when discussing topics. Your comment to Jason from nyc was ad hominem and uncalled for. Moreover, it was off-topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of ad hominem attacks when you cannot show where I have made any. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

I made that edit due to some objections in this rfc. Would you mind if i moved the edit somewhere else in the article? I simply want to make it clear in the Jah article that rastafaris say that term in reference to God.. Pass a Method talk 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessitated. I'm not sure edits to an article can ever be necessitated by discussion on a second article without also discussing it on the first article. And actually they say "Jah" in reference to YHWH, to be more precisely accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, would you mind if i added "Rastafaris say Jah in reference to YHWH" to the end of the "Bible and Rastafari usage" section? Pass a Method talk 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That isn't incorrect, it just seems repetitive since there are already several sentences in the article that should make this clear. For instance the first sentence in that section - "Jah is often used as a shortened form of the reconstructed Tetragrammaton." - is also saying the same thing. Isn't it already clear enough? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is clear enough for me, but there are some myopic editors on wikipedia who deny that a sentence implies something unless it paraphrases their exact thoughts. As a solution, how about if we amend the first sentence in that section to read - "Jah is often said and used as a shortened form of the reconstructed Tetragrammaton." Thoughts? Pass a Method talk 16:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that would be harmless, but I still can't imagine who would need to be told that if a name is "used", it is obviously "said"...! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

hyphens[edit]

Hi Til, in my understanding it's grammatically correct to write either "newly-built" or "newly built", depending on the style guide of the publication you're writing for. In this case, Wikipedia's style guide calls for "newly" rather than "newly-". You can see the guideline on this at MOS:HYPHEN. In any case, though, I'm always glad to meet another editor interested in the grammatical minutiae. Cheers, and enjoy the day-- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this one. This seems to be one where the -ly + past participle compound needs a hyphen. Saying that Fort Henry in 1645 was "a newly-built fort" is not exactly the same nuance as saying it was "a newly built fort" (treating the phrase as an adverb modifying a participle). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
As an adverb, what else could "newly" modify besides the adjective "built"? In any case, I won't personally revert it, but to overturn this policy, I think you're better off making your case at the talk page for MOS:HYPHEN. As you seem to feel strongly about it, you might consider marking the phrase with the "notatypo" template to avoid further AWB flagging. All best -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Newly doesn't exactly describe how it was built, actually everything is new when you build it. Newly-built should be treated as a single adjective as the hyphen signifies it was still newly-built at that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Scorpion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Generation Y page[edit]

Hi, could you tell us why you keep on adding this sentence to the Generation Y page: "Much as "Generation X" members are generally speaking, the children of "Baby Boomers", the phrase "Generation Y" alludes to a succession from parents who are "Generation X".

Just so you know -- a Gen Xer who is 40, 45 or 50 years could easily have a parent from the Silent generation (people over 70 yrs old today) and many do. Besides, the comment is original research according to Wikipedia policy.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This would be better discussed on the article talk page, as content disputes should concern all editors of the topic, not just me. This is the closest thing to a helpful or intelligible explanation in the entire article and the question should be why you keep summarily removing the new version of the sentence before it can be sourced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
In order to reach consensus, the policy is to reach out to you first on your talk page. The sentence was removed because it's original research and it's against Wikipedia policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".172.250.31.151 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I took a look to see how much this could be sourced, but to my surprise I found just as many saying that Generation Y have Baby Boomer parents, and somewhat of an argument especially from younger "Generation Y" or "Millennials" who have Generation X parents. So I guess you're right about removing that sentence altogether. That's just one disparity between younger generation Y and older generation Y, another is that the oldest in that date range would now be 32 and the youngest 9, what exactly is it that they are supposed to have so much in common as a 'cohort'? Thanks for discussing, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, you're welcome. You're right that the younger Gen Y cohort is different from the older Gen Y cohort (i.e the oldest didn't have access to email in high school (in 1995, '96) and the youngest grew up from day one with mobile Internet). But other aspects of both cohorts are the same like growing up in zero-tolerance for crime/mischief environments in grade school and high school. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden[edit]

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. Per appropriate notification, there's a discussion here concerning the Matthew Bryden page (the Horn of Africa political analyst) that you as one of the main contributors to the Ethiopia & Horn-related articles are invited to join. Please also see this. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the ANI, but can't tell what this would have to do with Ethiopia one way or another, never heard of Bryden, don't see what the actual content dispute is, nor any edit warring on the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Bryden is a Canadian political analyst, who specializes in Horn of Africa affairs. He was previously the Horn of Africa Director at the International Crisis Group (ICG), and later served as the UN's Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) until his dismissal last year. He is currently the Director of the Sahan Research Horn of Africa think tank. Please see here for a broad summary of the issue. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Aššur[edit]

I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assur accordingly.

Thanks

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argus (king of Argos), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neaera and Strymon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

myriad[edit]

Absolutely, feel free to find sources and give some context to those culture's use of the term. However, at the moment, those entries are completely unsourced and Wikipedia is NOT a WP:DICTIONARY. Long lists of random words in random sets of foreign languages belong at wikt:myriad, which is precisely where I put them. — LlywelynII 12:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, not a single one of those "definitions" has an entry at the moment, so several are probably erroneous or complete trolling. — LlywelynII 12:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, none of them are "trolling",m these are all legitimate words, and they are all languages spoken today, so per policy there is no need to "prove" that these are real words because they are known languages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Then source them. There is no proof at all that they are what they claim and, in fact, the lack of wiktionary entries for any of them suggests rather strongly that they are either wrong or misspelled. (Armenian, for example, uses a different word for myriad and doesn't use Latin script.) — LlywelynII 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't understand me, let me say it again in simpler terms. Wikipedia policy is not to require sourcing "proof" for foreign language words when there are people who know these languages and know that they are the correct words. If we say the French word for flower is fleur, we don't require a reference "proving" this, because this is common knowledge. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You may have missed this, but 3RR means you cannot revert 3 times within 24 hours. No need to call the law in, but you are the one edit warring here. I have given you policies and reasons and you have replied with "but I like it". That is unacceptable and unconstructive.
Those words need sourcing because they are obscure languages and probably (per wiktionary) wrong. — LlywelynII 12:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"Obscure" is in the eye of the beholder. They aren't considered "obscure" by their speakers, that is your systemic bias perception. I have told you what the policy is on sourcing foreign language words and you are 1) making policies up according to your systemic bias 2) telling me that I have no argument other than "but I like it." You have no cause to remove valid information from wikipedia because you DON'T like it and then unilaterally insist in its removal in accordance with your BIASES on what you consider too "obscure". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments, etc[edit]

I see that at Talk:Genesis creation narrative you have repeatedly objected, both in the text of the talk page and in edit summaries, to another editor removing a comment of yours, and yet you have also repeatedly removed another editor's comments. I do not at present wish to get involved in whether it was right to remove your comments, which were about your opinions of other editors, but I will say categorically that your removal of another editor's comments, which were about proposed edits to the article, was unacceptable, and more so when you edit war to keep the comment removed. If you continue with similar disruptive editing you will be blocked from editing. I also see that you have a history of numerous short blocks, every one of them for edit warring, over a period of more than five years, so it is clear that short blocks do not have the effect of conveying to you that following Wikipedia policies is not optional. That being so, a block for a very much longer period may well be appropriate. Finally, please stick to commenting on the issues, and do not post attacks on other editors, either individually or collectively. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Since posting the above message, I have had a look at some of your other recent editing. Without even looking further back than today, I found that you have been edit warring on Myriad and on Cuneiform. Any further edit warring at all, on any page, at any time, may lead to an extended block, without further warning. To avoid possible misunderstandings, please note that this is a warning about edit warring, not about the so-called "three revert rule", and whether you break that rule or not is immaterial. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit that wrongly removed my comment from the discussion page. I don't really care if there was a new comment he made. He is in the wrong for removing my comments, so I reverted him. He is free to re-make his comment at the bottom like everyone else, not to burn his comment over top of mine.. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It also disturbs me that you see fit to hold me to a specially higher standard than everyone else, all by yourself since for everyone else the three revert rule applies. How did you get this authority? Maybe it's time to re-read what Jimbo wrote in the beginning, about admins not having such special unilateral authority over other editors. My conscience does not rebuke me for anything I have done, but we can check with Jimbo if you're not sure what he meant about that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "for everyone else the three revert rule applies", but if it means that you are under the impression that edit warring is acceptable as long as you avoid breaking the three revert rule, then I suggest that you re-read the edit warring policy. It is precisely because that mistaken view of what the edit warring policy says is, for some reason, a very common misconception that I took the trouble to specify that I was not referring to the three revert rule. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
OK... I thought I understood the three revert rule, could you explain what it means? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Template change[edit]

Acutally, I thought I was somewhere else. Thanks!Learner001 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Myriad[edit]

Hi, I am a bit confused by this edit, which reverted all my changes to the myriad article. I made multiple changes:

  • from talking about the word to talking about the concept
  • changing (improving, I thought) the wording of the lead
  • deleting the reference to the Sinic usage from the lead
  • adding a reference to the OED
  • clarifying the wording around Greek numerals and letters
  • more accurately describing the situation in Modern Greek
  • using more standard formatting for the abbreviation: lit. instead of lit.
  • removing the   after "lit.", which I think is not good practice

Now it may well be that you disagreed with every single one of these changes, but your edit comment only mentioned the Sinic usage, which I'm sure we can correct without throwing out the other edits. It also referred to a "previous stable consensus", but I don't see a discussion about any of these points on Talk, let alone a consensus.

I have written up some comments on Talk:Myriad, and would be interested in your response there. --Macrakis (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ANEW[edit]

Our friend took you to WP:ANEW. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And I: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nubia123. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You know it's going to be wild when you find you're "a single group of users collaborating" with the AnomieBot! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the other editor per the ANEW report on Madai. Please take care not to violate 3RR yourself though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fournet's self-published stuff[edit]

As discussed in Talk:Kassites#Fournet's TMCJ, you *MUST* provide references to Fournet's articles in peer-reviewed sources to refplace his self-published stuff in TMCJ. Talskubilos (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC) You've also reverted my edits in BAD FAITH! 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talskubilos (talkcontribs)

Please don't curse at me in edit summaries, then lecture me about bad faith. You are the one blanking out published references just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when not a soul other than you has objected to the reference or to the scholar being a reliable source. Like I said, there are established, civilized procedures here for you to follow if you wish to seek consensus about the reliability of the source. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had reached an agreement in Talk:Kassites, for which you woukd provide refs to relevant Fournet's article peer-reviewed instead of self-published stuff. It's not a question of personal likes/dislikes but of meetinhg Wikipedia's standards. Talskubilos (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Fournet is a well known, published and respected expert on Hurrians, Kassites, etc." How many articles has he written in peer-reviewed pubs? Until now you've provided only one. Have you heard of Sock_puppetry? Talskubilos (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You asked for one, I provided one, and we see what good that did. "Not good enough for me, I demand more" This naturally gives rise to two further questions: Who the hell are you, and what are you doing up on that high horse? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask you once again: where're these supposed articles which Mr. Fournet has supposedly written in peer-review pubs? Are you acting Mr. Fournet's agent? Talskubilos (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not his agent. However, I do not feel obligated to answer any further demands of yours since I have already adequately done so by any standard used here at wikipedia. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to seek a wider WP:CONSENSUS on the matter, but not to act unilaterally. (You do know what "Consensus" and "Collaboration" means right?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand the references were for the articles themselves, not to prove Fournet's reputation (besides the fact a reputed scholar is expected to have plenty of them). You said "he is one of the top published experts in the field of Hurrians and Hurrian languages", but unfortunately his coauthored work with the Nostraticist Allan Bomhard, which sought to prove a close relationship between Hurrian and IE, has gotten negative reviews and Bomhard himself has *retracted* from it. I know the guy, because we had dicussions in several Yahoo groups, and most of his work is *self-published*, including his own TMCJ, which has fooled several Wikipedia editors into thinking is a reputable source. Talskubilos (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep on unilaterally and summarily deleting all references to his work, on the basis of your own personal belief that you have stated above that he is not reputable. I don't see anybody but you saying this or doing this, and you are going to continue to be reverted or worse if you continue to strip valid references from the articles. You should have been here long enough to know it doesn't work like that. You can try to get a valid WP:CONSENSUS somewhere first that his work cannot be used here, if it is possible for you to persuade anyone beside yourself that his work on Hurrian etc. is invalid and inadmissible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's YOU who has to persuade anybody else that self published work from an *amateur* linguist (his Uniervsity degree was on mine engineering) is a valid reference in Wikipedia. Peer-reviewed pubs are OK, self-published stuff is NOT. You're not the only editor who has been deceived by his self-made TMCJ. Talskubilos (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not the only editor, and I don't think you've convinced anyone yet. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Convinced of what? That the TMCJ is Fournet's self-publishing device? Or that he's an amateur? Talskubilos (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a few other editors who affirmed to you that he is a widely read and published expert in Ancient linguistics, but so far none concurring with you on either of your points, unless I missed it. And your response was to say that you are right and went so far as to say all the editors defending him must be his close associates or on his payroll or something. Do you seriously think this is going to work? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep dodging the real point: according to Wikipedia's standards, self-published stuff isn't a reliable source. Fournet is an *crackpot* linguist who hasn't even a Wikipedia article devoted to him. Talskubilos (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fournet is a crackpot" according to whom? Oh, wait - according to User Talskubilos... Tsk, tsk, not very "neutral" point of view. Throw me a frickin' bone here! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As I told you before, I've had many online discussions with him and I've also read some of his self-published articles. According to him, not only Hurrian (or rather Hurro-Urartian, for he has an obsession with Hurrian) is an IE language, but Yeniseian as well. Talskubilos (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You demanded to be shown where he has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and you were shown where he has been published in a peer reviewed journal. That right there meets our wikipedia standard for establishing he is a scholar, but it was not enough for your standard. You then demanded to be shown where he has been published in MULTIPLE peer reviewed journals. OK, so you were shown where he has been published in MULTIPLE peer reviewed journals. But you still were not satisfied and sought to raise the bar even more impossibly higher. And now it doesn't matter how widely he is cited, he is still a "crackpot", simply because you know the guy online. And never mind that "crackpot" is a pejorative opinion that hasn't been substantiated by anything published by his peers -- wikipedia is supposed to just take your word for it that this guy's name doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in any article. I think I see why you are having trouble convincing anyone. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got no objection to quote Fournet's articles, as long as they're published in peer-reviewed publications. This is why I asked you for valid refs to replace the bad ones. In addition to his "reputable" work, he has many *crackpot* articles which have been never published in peer-reviewed journals. The only exception is his coauthored work with Bomnhard on Hurrian-IE relationship, from which his partner has later *retracted*. The guy is also a nasty *troll*, as you can see in this post on a Yahoo group: [4]. Talskubilos (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Finding a compromise[edit]

Look at talk-page. I have a suggestion to find a compromise.Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mannaeans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ararat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On 3RR and what not[edit]

Look buddy, I know you do some good work here on Wiki. My watchlist has you daily for reverting vandalism on some of my favorite articles. Note that I started my involvement mentioning you're one of the good ones here.

Now, I really have no agenda. I brought up coffee because that's where I also encountered you and disagreed with you. In both instances, my understanding of the documentary evidence does point to Queen Sheba and Coffee being more on the Yemeni side than on the Ethiopian side of the red sea.

Ethiopia's cultural contributions are not going to be wiped out because we're bringing modern evidence and scholarship to articles plagued with nationalistic fervor and unsubstantiated folk tales. I trust you will put your rationalism first and work collaboratively with us to have the best, non-POV article we could have. Nationalist POV-pushing will only engender resentment and accusations of vandalism.

I'd also say Ethiopia's most important contribution was probably humanity: H. sapiens sprung up from there. With that, who cares about a cheap drink and an ancient queen, eh?

Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your attitude clearly seems to be that the Ethio-Semitic view of their own culture (which has more to do with the origin of coffee being in Ethiopia, and pride in their Semitic roots having immigrated from Yemen as they believe, than with 'Lucy') is irrelevant to articles involving Ethiopian culture. This is systemic bias, plain and simple. So we have to rely on what Ethiopia's detractors say and pooh-pooh whatever Ethiopians say about themselves, because "everyone knows" Ethiopians could really know nothing of their own history, they fabricated all of their records, and therefore whatever their detractors say must be correct and whatever they say about themselves must be a lie. Because "everyone knows" this there is no need for actual proof - Ethiopian records, according to this brand of minimalism, are not only evidence that it must have been something completely different, but they can't even be allowed to be mentioned, they are so wrong, because we are fearful of anyone hearing what they have to say about themselves and what their point of view of themselves is. Do you not see how you have the Ethiopian POV backed into a corner, you aggressively go directly into their turf on articles involving Ethiopian culture and back their POV about themselves into a corner, while exalting what scholars in London say who have trouble recognising one word in Ethiopic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If you went to the area, did you notice that there is a slightly cooler climate in the mountains? But the bean obviously couldn't have originated in the cool mountains, I guess it had to have been in one of the hotter surrounding countries, because minimalism often trumps all other means of scientific inquiry. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Injera[edit]

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. May I ask why exactly you reverted on the Injera page? The link doesn't actually indicate that injera originated in Eritrea [5]. It's just more pov-pushing by yet another account of the blocked user Hiyob346. Now that the situation is clear, will you redress the error or should I? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm having browser problems at the moment and cant check the google books without difficulty so I'll take your word for it and revert myself since you are near your limit. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't revert because it wasn't as clear as you say. Both books about Eritrea do mention injera as one of the native foods, and I don't comprehend why this would be controversial anyway since I know they are correct. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether or not injera is a native food in Eritrea. This is a given, just as it is a given that injera is a native food in Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan and Yemen. What is not a given or indicated in any of the links is that the dish itself originated in Eritrea specifically. This has already been established above with the link that the Hiyob346 account just added. The other link I personally added in the past, so I'm quite aware of what it says. It indicates that "injera is the fermented panake-like flatbread, which originated in Ethiopia and neighbouring countries", and nothing more [6]. The links must explicitly state that injera originated in Eritrea or it's original research because per Template:Infobox prepared food, the country infobox parameter in question is reserved for the "country of origin of the dish". Otherwise, there's absolutely no reason why all of Ethiopia's other injera-consuming neighbouring countries aren't added to the country parameter as well. Please also note that it's actually the national cuisine parameter that is reserved for the "cuisine by nationality". Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Til Eulenspiegel and Middayexpress. Here are more sources that verifies that origin of injera is Eritrea and Ethiopia [7], [8]. (Taita is also synonym for injera/ingera). As mentioned by Til Eulenspiegel, this is not controversial fact since it is true. Nhfbj (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither link says that injera originated specifically in Ethiopia and Eritrea and nowhere else, Hiyob346. Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
lol, Injera originated eons before there was any such thing as an Eritrean border artificially drawn by foreign colonialist powers right down the middle of tribal territories with the same people on both sides. In fact most of the cultural development took place in that same area close to where the border is, so it's hard to separate which of the modern states is responsible for the origin of any cultural development for people who like to get things compartmentalized. The Italians famously found out what a fruitless task it is to try to segregate everything the way they wanted in that region, as an Oromo mayor once told an Italian colonel, "Do you see those large bags of wild rice over there? It would be far easier, and more productive, for you to separate each of those grains of rice by color, than it would be for you to separate Ethiopians by tribe or language, because they are all of mixed blood and come from more than one tribe, and they all speak more than one language." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Do you object, then, if the country parameter also includes Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan and Yemen alongside Eritrea? Because that is what the aforementioned link means by "injera is the fermented panake-like flatbread, which originated in Ethiopia and neighbouring countries" (plural). It does not mean Ethiopia and Eritrea (singular) exclusively, as the infobox now insinuates. Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think you get what I am saying. Injera indisputably originated in the highlands (where the teff grain has always been cultivated), which do not extend into the low-lying torrid countries around these mountains. It could not possibly have simultaneously originated in all of these different surrounding countries where the highland cuisine diffused. You can always find some Authority like the Junior World Book that says "Ethiopia and neighboring countries" but I would caution against rigidly and literalistically assuming this means ALL neighbouring countries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Injera is not solely made with the teff grain; that's just one variety. So what, then, do you propose? The link states that it originated in Ethiopia and neighbouring injera-consuming countries. Middayexpress (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would use common sense that this obviously doesn't mean it simultaneously originated in all of these different countries on either side of the mountainous region. And if we are talking about the origin, we are talking about teff, since that is certainly the original grain that was used in the development of the cuisine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Teff is just one ingredient in one variety of injera (the highland variety). At any rate, an r/s must explicitly assert that injera originated in Ethiopia and Eritrea exclusively or it's o/r. Middayexpress (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Between 1954 and 1993 Eritrea was part of Ethiopia. Sources from that time saying injera originated in Ethiopia would include both modern day successor states, and you are insisting on a forced literal interpretation of some source that taken literally would suggest that it originated independently at the same time in six different countries, in defiance of common sense which should be sufficient to perceive this is erroneous and not what anyone thinks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I realize that. However, the links above aren't from that time period nor do they specifically allude to the highlands alone. One does, however, suggest that injera originated in Ethiopia and environs. This precisely the general area where it is today a national dish, so it's not unreasonable at all. Middayexpress (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So based on what is already established, you aren't convinced yourself that this means it originated in Eritrea / Ethiopia? Do you seriously entertain the idea that perhaps it originated in Somalia first, or Sudan, or Yemen, or Djibouti, and then spread to all the other countries from there? What part are you not understanding that I can find more sources on? Because I'm not seeing how anyone could seriously think that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that the teff variety of injera originated in the Ethiopian/Eritrean highlands based on the endemicity of teff grain there. However, it's rather doubtful that that's where the dish as a whole (all varieties) first came into being. Middayexpress (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Lycia''' [[Lycian language|Lycian]]: 𐊗𐊕𐊐𐊎𐊆𐊖 ''Trm̃mis''; {{lang-el|Λυκία}}, {{lang-tr|Likya}}) was a geopolitical region in [[Anatolia]] in what are now the [[Provinces of Turkey|provinces]] of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for background on your strong opinions about bias ...[edit]

... to better understand your objection to the very existence of something that is the warp and woof of all intellectual endeavour. (In scholarly circles it is generally appreciated that one does not ever really escape or eliminate bias; rather, one is at best honest about the particular perspective brought to any argument, considering and stating it clearly. Or, vis-a-vis Wikipedia writing, giving air time both to those ideas one is biased toward, and against.) This is not to say that some biases are not better substantiated by the facts than others; this is where a stricter adherence to WP citation and verifiability policies would much improve this venue. Cheers. A professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.23.101 (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The best place to direct you would be WP:NPOV. According to wikipedia it does exist, indeed it is a cornerstone policy here. Think of it as a football game where the Steelers and Cowboys are competing - representing the controversy between aspects or points of view in a contested subject. If you have your camera right down there in the action behind the Steelers you are showing it from their point of view. In three dimensional thinking, it also becomes possible to view the contest from a bird's eye vantagepoint above the players, where one can see both sides and what is happening from neither point of view. This is akin to what wikipedia does, at least on the articles worth reading. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is not whether a neutral point of view is to be sought; rather, it is whether each editor truly has biases that need to be acknowledged (if only to themselves), as they write. As for that, your discussion above, about beloved injera, is rife with bias on both sides. It simply is left for the reader to tease out what those biases are, in reading the back and forth. (Your emphatic arguments in particular, while likely correct, e.g., regarding the proper way to interpret the source appearing, are based on a large host of "facts not in evidence". Until the points you make to deny the other editor's interpretation are supported by citations, the bulk of your argument is simply your bias, however correct—and emphatically, self-justifyingly stated—it might be!) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.23.101 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The truth about where the first injera was baked is solid as a rock. All truth is solid as a rock, whether any of us human beings even discover knowledge or proof of it or not, it is solid as a rock.
  • Our job is to report what can be verified. We cannot get the precise geographic coordinates of where the first enjera was baked, nor the time of day, month, and year. The ability to discover that much detail would require superhuman knowledge.
  • Using principles of common sense, it can be postulated that there was a first time and place that injera was baked. We just cannot pinpoint the precise time and place with any means we are so far aware of.
  • The article topic is injera, which is a specifically Ethiopian word referring to an Ethiopian bread, baked with a grain (teff) that natively grows only in Ethiopia. But since you are a detector of bias, perhaps you can detect a little "Ethio-minimalism" in the arguments of the section above. Or how about can you detect any bias here: "Okay, we'll grant you that teff grows only in Ethiopia. So we will grudgingly concede that it is perhaps feasible that teff enjera was first baked in Ethiopia. But never forget we are experienced pros at using plausible deniability to twist any situation toward what we say we would like the truth to appear as. We are also the same people who actively and aggressively attempt to deny Ethiopia any credit for any culture or contribution on any article. They are merely a bunch of starving illiterate people with no written language or alphabet. Well we know that's not really true, we can't get away with saying they have no written language any more these days, but fact remains they are all 100% illiterate. And all of their traditions are laughable, you should not listen to any Ethiopians about Ethiopia, you should listen to armchair experts in ivory towers in London and Oxford. Oh, and one more thing --- we're not biased -- THEY ARE!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tef[edit]

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. How in your opinion did the non-tef varieties evolve (lahoh)? They aren't made with teff, yet they're the same dish. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lahoh might not be made with teff, but it is just an imitation of enjera. Enjera is made with teff, the article is enjera, and the origin is Ethiopia/Eritrea (which was not separated at the time it originated so both countries can claim the credit). These aren't opinions, all this is well known and it's like you're just trying to come up with something different. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I was curious because the Somali variety is also called canjeero (the name in Somali, where the "c" is an ayin). The question is, how can we be certain that it's not the other way around i.e. that the teff variety is the adaptation? After all, the canjeero/lahoh variety is also eaten in Yemen. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if nobody has ever said that in any sources - and I know I've never heard such a thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The links mention several adjacent countries collectively as its likely place of origin, including Ethiopia. However, nothing beyond that on the provenance of its specific varieties; so I thought I'd ask you from your personal experience. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chin up![edit]

Just a friendly FYI that, while we have spatted on some issues over Native American stuff, we seem to have one we agree on at the Genesis narrative discussion!! I'm not spending a lot of time on that tl;dr dramafest, but feel free to ping me with a diff if you think there is something I need to see.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Genesis creation whatever[edit]

I's keep the existing title - why needlessly antagonise people? But also, why give yourself all this grief? That title ain't gonna change. PiCo (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are right, but you DO realize that the editor who is the biggest advocate for this change used to be User:Science Apologist, don't you? You give into that guy and the bullies win. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Com'on dude![edit]

Tryin' to be civilized here and assuming the best. First, you revert and get the page wrong. Now, you revert and you're still getting the source wrong. Here is the whole paragraph from the book:

"An evocative etymology provided for the word "coffee" links it to the legion of Kaffa (now usually spelled “Kefa“) in Ethiopia, which is currently one of Africa‘s noted growing districts. Some say that because the plant was first grown in that region, and was possibly first infused as a beverage there, the Arabs named it after that place. Others, with equally little authority turn this story on its head and claim that the district was named for the bean."

Note three things:

  • Note the equally little authority in that quote. Whom do you think the other people with little authority being referred to? Obviously, it's the people who support the Kaffa etymology.
  • There are many possible etymologies in that book. The fact that we include this one (an especially weak one, too) out of all of them is POV. That's why I'll try to list them all, but I think a better approach is to remove the Kaffa and quwwa thing.
  • My rephrasing is fairly accurate. Which part do you actually disagree with?

Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you could, I'd ask you to read the whole section in that book. You'd see the authors actually compare the different etymologies and the Kaffa one is one of the weaker ones (that is, of course, besides the direct quote right up there).
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, he must have put that sentence about "equally little authority" in his 2001 edition. I have no idea why he would have dropped it from the 2002 edition that I can see on google. But note he only says the derivation from Arabic Quwwa is weak, whereas he calls this one "evocative". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That's odd; I actually quoted the 2002 edition up there because that's the one I thought you had access to. The 2001 edition contains almost the same exact paragraph as well -with the authority part. Either way, what do you think we should about this? Include all etymologies, or remove the unlikely ones? I'll differ to you on this one.
You know what's funny? I watch a few history-related articles and generally agree with everything you do when you show up reverting funny or not-so-funny vandalism. The fact we had so much friction over two articles is kinda tragically unrepresentative of how I view your edits around here.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, my eyes must have been playing tricks on me, the 'authority' part is there on p 15 of 2002 also. So sorry about my revert, you are right on this one! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It's cool; I reverted you before on another article without noticing that you actually added the image elsewhere so let's call it even! Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Drama board?[edit]

Well, I found this a bit annoying. I would like your thoughts, though: Do you think that drama at the move discussion is getting anywhere, or are people just yelling at each other? I'm half-tempted to take this to ANI due to the personal attaks on a lot of people - including you- but I don't want it to boomerang on you, as I think you've been acting valiantly in there and sometimes they cut a wide swath at the drama boards. Feel free to drop me a message at my talk (or an email, whatever you'd like to do) with your views. Montanabw(talk) 06:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this umpteenth page move request was started, there has been no consensus (ie general agreement) for a move. There has been the diametric polar opposite of "consensus" as defined in English dictionaries, with a slight majority of opinion against the move. Ordinarily this would be reassuring, but as can be seen these are no ordinary page move proponents. They keep attempting to frame the debate as if their pov is so correct, it trumps what all opposing scholars say, it trumps what all opposing editors say, and it trumps what maybe around half the population of the planet (where our readership comes from) might feel about it. Anything that gets in the way of their bigotry is "special pleading". It is a waste of bandwidth trying to point out that this document is revered by ALL of the Abrahamic faiths, not just Christianity. They only hear themselves, and single out Christianity for particularly rancorous vilification, as if anything a scholar says can be rejected if it can be shown the scholar might have some ties to that hated heresy, Christianity. All it would take is one closing admin who shares their warped perspective to effectively cast a "supervote" and veto all the opposing editors and academic sources alike. And then I can imagine the outcry. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ordinarily, "consensus" is overturned like that by a closer admin *ONLY* in the rare instances that an army of suspicious single purpose accounts and people who never contributed to an article drive by and blatantly pad the vote. Lately however I have observed a disturbing trend of a new admin who declared "consensus" for a move when opinion was split, based on his own whim, and siding WITH the drive-bys who never contributed, against the regular page editors who all opposed the move. This particularly bad decision is now being contested. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sumer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your brave and lucid participation and support on my talk page[edit]

It was about the deletion of my article: Conservatorio Superior de Música de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires "Astor Piazzolla" and the participation of Jimfbleak and Alexf. Thank very, very much! I really appreciate it! If there is anything more I can do, please let me know and I will act accordingly. Nelidarocca (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank your brave objectiveness and fairness! Nelidarocca (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice on reproducing Internet texts[edit]

Til Eulenspiegel, I would really appreciate your kind advice regarding the articles I wish to write. What to do with texts marked in the following way: "All rights reserved. These texts [...] can be reproduced free of charge with [...] the following [...] credits: Reproduced by permission of"? What is the correct way of reproducing those texts according to the current Wikipedia's regulations? How should indicate that I am doing well in those cases? Thank you in advance for your kind answer. Nelidarocca (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the most expert person on copyright law around here, but finding someone who is should be easy... But in the case of the translated material, I'm sure this was obviously far too strict a standard being applied. There must have only been a very few cases where some judges in some places may have awarded liability damages for translating copyright material, upon complaint by the publisher. But in this case, it's hard to imagine the original publisher minding or raising a complaint. Also, normally, paraphrases of published material are not only clearly allowed, but it is what we are supposed to do in order to avoid copyright infringement and plagiarism. So when you are talking about translation into an entirely different idiom, how does one distinguish a paraphrase from a translation, or a translation of a paraphrase? Despite what was said, no two languages will translate the same text "word for word", that is why copyright cases are hard to extend across translations and why that seemed like a feeble pretext (and a shifting pretext after the original ones failed...!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, thank you so much for your detailed answer! In this case I was referring to English texts for an article in English. I imagine that id the author says that " These texts [...] can be reproduced free of charge with [...] the following [...] credits" means that, as long as you mention him/her, there should be no problem. Thanks again and have a nice week! Nelidarocca (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

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

Tar-Baby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Anansi the Spider, Zapotec and Pipil
Coyote in mythology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Zapotec
Dudu of Akkad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Akkad
Ilulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gutian
Pseudepigrapha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tewahedo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Srry...[edit]

I would like to apologize if I offended you or insulted you because of the barnstar. I wasn't trying to make you feel uncomfortable about the situation. I am truly amazed on how you handled the arguments in the talk section of article: Genesis creation narrative, and thats why I awarded you with the barnstar really. -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I now understand, appreciate the thought and sorry for being disdainful. I misinterpreted it to be suggesting something else. I have been replying there because I was taught how to take apart a huge pile of arguments-by-analogy with ease every time, since I know they are always used as a substitute for rational argument to achieve a questionable result - by pointing at some fait accomplis on some vaguely similar "otherstuff" decided somewhere else by a different set of people, and then arguing on behalf of the slippery slope (and of course, "consistency" rather than considering things on a case-by-case basis), they think this saves them the trouble of having to explain why it was correct in the first place. And they're right - it already has - on many articles they've come across where nobody called them on this fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Helios[edit]

I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from the Alexander Helios page, which has been reinstated by you. Please join me in a discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks! IbisNext (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

AN[edit]

Enough is enough. I've raised your behavior at WP:AN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meluhha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

208.53.168.80[edit]

Thanks for repairing my talk page.
I saw your message regarding the edit to Adamic language. There is something strange here. I undid the IP's edit. The link http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm does not work. I googled "jesus site:all-jesus.com" which returned zero hits, so I suspect the website doesn't exist. Removing the hyphen results in a valid website, but is 404. http://www.alljesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm htm -> html http://www.alljesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.html does not help either. Is this just made up? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably should scrutinize the rest of the edits. Jim1138 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me if it was a bogus ref, since the anon seems a little out of balance. I didn't try to check the ref, but it at least had the semblance of a valid edit (though the edit summary was a major red flag). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to see what happens in a week. Jim1138 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Zabid[edit]

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. A user on the Yemen page has been conflating Zanj slaves in Arabia with Ethiopians. He has simultaneously removed material on Axumite rule there. As an editor familiar with both areas and the related Sheba issue, would you mind giving your input here? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The Midianites through their apparent religio-political connection with the [[Moabites]<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|36:35|HE}}; {{bibleverse||Numbers|22:4,7|HE}}; {{bibleverse||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of deleted text in constitution article[edit]

Hi - I just want to follow up on your reversion of a change I made to the first paragraph of the constitution article. You reverted my deletion of the following sentence:

"These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is."

With all due respect (I am very new to wikipedia, and I understand this is an important part of an important article), I suggest that my deletion be accepted, for the following reasons:

  • The sentence does not add any useful information to the first paragraph.
  • The sentence introduces a new term and, as a result, disrupts the flow of the first paragraph. The immediately preceding and following sentences refer to principles, while this sentence refers to rules.
  • The sentence likely does not refer to the most relevant sense of the word constitute. A constitution establishes or gives legal form to the entity to which the constitution relates. (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitute)
  • The sentence is inelegantly phrased.
  • It's unclear what the sentence means. Can rules really "make up what an entity is"?

Separately, let me know if this is an inappropriate way of explaining why I disagree with a reversion of an edit I have made. Should I have posted this to the Talk page for the article itself? Should I have just reverted your reversion? L234kkk1 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Try reading a few different constitutions to get a feeling of what they are. They aren't merely rules, they practically paint a picture of how that society is expected to work. In a very literal sense, they constitute what the entity is. What would you say is in your constitution? Maybe bones, blood, hair, other fluids, right? It is precisely the same for these non-physical "bodies"; they are living documents, not just words in ink on paper. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What in the world was I blocked for?[edit]

User:Laser brain whom I have never heard of has just suddenly blocked me without explanation or warning, an I have no idea why. What did I do now? Or is this a mistake? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies; I was typing my notice to you and it took a few minutes. The reasoning is in the section below. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You are acting on your whim when there is no clear consensus that I deserve any block. And I have nothing to do with "psudoscience" which is a thinly disguised euphemism for "HERESY!!!111" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You should block editors when they actually insert pseudoscience into articles which you cannot show where I have ever done, because I have not been doing this. I have only been using talkpages for discussing academic sources that some editors may consider "pseudoscientific" when they in fact are not theories that the scientific method has had much bearing on, since they are entirely hypothetical. This is using peer pressure to muzzle editors who discuss these sources, using me as a proxy since they can't go after the scholars, academics and university professors themselves who publish the offending viewpoints. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, this is the very behavior you've been blocked for. You habitually lash out at people who disagree with you and lace your comments with personal attacks. Suggesting that I am "acting on [my] whim" is attacking my integrity as an administrator. I reviewed your behavior and determined a block was in order. At this point you can post a well-reasoned unblock request that addresses the behavior you were blocked for (the one below doesn't qualify) or you can ride out the block and adjust your behavior when you return. If you get into a dispute and the consensus is that you are wrong or that the sources you're proposing are poor, then let it drop and find something else to do. You must also cease the personal attacks on those you disagree with. The fact that you've never heard of me or had any interaction with me is good; that means you can be assured I am acting neutrally and without interest in your dispute. I have been clear about my reasons for blocking you and will not reply to any further aspersions. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am attacking your integrity as an administrator, because when you ignore consensus and block me unilaterally and without warning, that is the very definition of "acting on your whim", which is clearly what you are doing here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • At no time did a sysop warm me that I could be blocked for mentioning these sources in discussions. Three editors from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard said the academic sources were "fringe" even though nothing has ever been published rebutting or discrediting these sources, these editors claim to have originally rebutted them. This proves that the editors from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard can declare whatever they want in any controversy about religious practices or traditions to be "FRINGE" and "PSEUDOSCIENCE" and any editor who challenges their verdict is liable to be punished by sysops. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

TParis, Ignocrates, PiCo, Liz, Raquel Baranow, Ret.Prof and I all have a consensus for closure and mediation on the other spurious "FRINGE" thread and discussions are beginning now and ongoing for mediation involving me, and then I suddenly get blocked for one week without any warning, apparently for 'espousing forbidden views'. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry to see you are having difficulties. We would appreciate your perspective in mediation when you return. Ignocrates (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what, in particular, you were discussing that led to these troubles but I have a very negative view of the Fringe noticeboard. Often, the atmosphere there is more like a witchhunt than a careful and reasonable discussion of the subjects in question. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The effect may be like a witch hunt, but the atmosphere is the cigar smoking room where everything is scoffed at. "This old boy Edison says he can create light, ha ha we all know it isn't possible so no need to read his paperwork, they're already discredited..." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Pursuant to the behavior outlined in this thread and considering your block history, I have blocked you for one week for battleground behavior and disruptive editing. I would also like to warn you that pseudoscience topics are currently under discretionary sanctions; the relevant Arbitration case is here. Consider this a formal warning that further conduct pursuant to the findings of that case, in particular 4a ("Appropriate sources"} and 9 ("Content dispute") will result in a longer block under WP:AE. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Til Eulenspiegel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This seems intended as a punitive block, but it will do little good as I continue to agree with an increasing number of other editors that the FTN regulars have been overstepping their bounds by wading into "deciding" ancient biblical disputes and proclaiming any theological interpretations or views they don't like "PSEUDOSCIENCE" by fiat, no further explanation required. I was blocked for "disruptive editing" without warning, but I wish the blocking admin can show one diff where I committed that crime. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion linked to below establishes the reason for this block clearly. Your complaints about others don't belong here, see WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  10:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

What, pray tell, "pseudoscience" are you accusing me of? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not being accused of pseudoscience. You are being warned of discretionary sanctions under an ArbCom case of that name. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The archived location of the ANI discussion that led to this block is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Til Eulenspiegel. See Laser brain's rationale for the block in the closure box of that thread. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, I was punished, not warned, and the reason given above states "pseudoscience topics". Again: what "pseudoscience topic" have I edited or otherwise offended, and where is the diff I am being punished for, if I am meant to understand the reasons for my "punishment"? Thanks... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No. Your block log indicates you were blocked for disruptive editing - doesn't mention anything about Pseudoscience in it, which is mandatory when sanctioning someone under an ArbCom decision. Likewise, the block notice does not explicitly mention you being blocked pursuant to an ArbCom decision (which is also mandatory). You are being warned under the Pseudoscience case. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I still don't clearly understand what I did, what the diff was, or how I should have avoided being blocked for a week, or why I am being warned for "pseudoscience". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Til Eulenspiegel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block did not follow any kind of due process whatsoever and is a dangerous precedent. I have NO desire to continue contributing here any more if these self-aggrandizing "Super-Sysops" are allowed to act out according to their whim like this. There was NO WARNING whatsoever I was in any danger of being blocked for a week. I was accused of "disruptive editing" and "Pseudoscience" in only the vaguest terms (So am I being accused of "pseudoscience" or not? And if not, why am I "warned" for it? It couldn't be more ambiguous or lacking in adequate explanation) THOUGH I REQUESTED REPEATEDLY, NO DIFF WAS EVER SHOWN TO ME WHERE I COMMITTED ANY OF THESE TRUMPED UP "VIOLATIONS" - SO HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO STUDY THEM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I DID WRONG AND AVOID BEING ARBITRARILY BLOCKED AGAIN IN THE FUTURE FOR EXPRESSING FORBIDDEN THOUGHTS? What am I supposed to "learn" from this punishment other than that Super-Sysops can block you according to their arbitrariness? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no unblock reason given. m.o.p 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I was staying out of this due to your extreme dislike of me, but this is ridiculous. You were very lucky that your attack on me and another editor on your talk page[9] which was oversighted and the comment you made there "BOYCOTT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, IT IS CONTROLLED BY RACIST BIGOTED ADMINS WHO THINK THEIR RACIST BIGOTED OPINION IS MADE OUT OF GOLD, THE DREAM OF EVER HAVING A NEUTRAL PROJECT HAS GONE DOEWN THE TUBES AND THIS FROM NOW ON SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS RACIST BIASPEDIA" and the discussion of that at [10] didn't lead to an even longer block than this one. You were disruptive then, you got blocked this time for disruptive editing, and you still don't understand what you've done wrong. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I need to know where I crossed the line this time around so I know where the line is drawn and not to cross it again; I do not think I said anything comparable in vehemence to what I said last March '13 when I was so furious I was boycotting (I don't even remember what article we were fighting over off the top of my head). This time I was merely disagreeing with other editors about their judgement of sources, I think others have disagreed with them as well, and I and others continue to disagree with them and this is not remedied by any block. If I am being blocked a week for what I said in March as you suggest, at least that is more understandable and deserved, if delayed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know why I am being treated with such contempt. The block did not follow any semblance of due process, there was no warning, and I have not had anything to do with inserting pseudoscience into any article, nor have I been disruptive. I have not been shown a single diff where I did either, and I have no understanding of my doing anything wrong. All you have to do is show me a diff where I ever inserted "pseudoscience" into an article or caused a disruption, for which I am being blocked. Otherwise anyone can be blocked at random on a sysops whim and an excuse can be made up like "pseudoscience" that has nothing to do with the editors' work. So "the block did not follow any semblance of due process" IS a reason for unblock, but in a special show of contempt that is rejected as "not a reason". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Laser brain, not only do you throw out long blocks on unsuspecting editors without warning and inappropriately blame it on "pseudoscience" (which I am innocent of) but you are terrible at showing accountability for your decisions. Accountability here would mean providing me with at least one offending diff that got me blocked if no other reasonable explanation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • EdJohnston You seem to be the only sysop here who is paying any real attention or showing even minimal accountability here. I saw where you had to remind "Laser brain here that if he is going to pretend he is "warning" me for "pseudoscience" he is supposed to log it (Yes, this is the reason we log and record things, Laser brain - because sometimes people in positions of trust and authority abuse that trust, so when it all comes out under wider scrutiny, everyone can check the recorded log to see exactly who did what and what reason they gave...) And Ed is the only one who seems to perceive when he says "My attention was drawn because he believes the reason for the block to be unclear." Ed, at this time I would like to take the opportunity to ask you if YOU believe the reason for the block to be "clear", would you mind explaining it to me how and why I am being accused (or warned or blocked or whatever) for "PSEUDOSCIENCE"... thanks... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
At the center of the case are a series of increasingly harsh comments you made at Talk:Holy anointing oil between Jan. 23 and Feb.5. One example: here.

LOL "We don't like the hypothesis that K=C. We can't prove that K does not = C, and neither has anyone else proved anything, but it's a lot easier to win the argument by simply declaring all sources for the other POV unreliable, therefore we can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, while scoffing any heretic who thinks this as "FRINGE"...! All in the name of NPOV! Just call it NPOV 2014 style... "

This was part of a string of about 40 posts. Some editors judged that you were advocating for a FRINGE theory about use of marijuana by the ancient Hebrews as part of a religious ritual. The logging or non-logging of the Pseudoscience warning in the Arbcom case is a technical matter in my opinion, and has no impact on your argument (if any) for unblock. The content issue was also reported at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Holy anointing oil and cannabis. It's easy to see why an admin might have judged your editing at Talk:Holy anointing oil to be disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me where I caused offense. In the "disruptive" example above, just to explain, K represents Keneh Bosm and C represents cannabis. There are in fact numerous academic and scholarly sources discussing the theory that K=C. These include professional botanists who have written research studies about cannabis. The Fringe Theories Noticeboard viewpoint being enforced here with the admin toolbox -- which is not a viewpoint reflected in any actual scholarly literature, but seems like an FTN original -- is evidently that any university botanist who researches cannabis is not a botanist but a FRINGE theorist. Only the relatively few sources that do NOT mention cannabis at all are thus being deemed "reliable" and accorded "due weight". Can the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regulars just say whatever they collectively don't like is a "Fringe Theory" on any controversial issue, and any editors who dare persist in disagreeing with the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regulars then be summarily blocked? Because that's about the only lesson I can possibly take from this, EdJohnston. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Holy anointing oil is an obscure topic where you don't expect to find many editors. How good is your ancient Hebrew and your knowledge of paleobotany? You had the task of convincing the set of people who follow that stuff. Forty comments sounds like you were losing patience and maybe your sense of perspective. Accusing others of bad faith (as in your comment that I quoted above) seems like a poor move when you are swimming upstream. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In fact I have knowledge of ancient Hebrew, but that is actually irrelevant, because as I keep trying to point out, I have academic, scholarly and even university journal sources that speak for this view. It's what they think that should be relevant, not what editors think. Why on earth do wikipedia editors need to be "convinced" that scholarship is bona fide, even scholarship on cannabis? How can they claim to have debunked this scholarship on their own without even any sources doing so? How can they impose an original litmus test for reliability and due weight of only the few sources not mentioning the theory at all, that is not backed up in any scholarly opinion? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
ping EdJohnston again. Ed, I have edited the English language project since 2005. If I am going to continue under new unwritten rules, I need to know what they are so I cannot get blocked for violating them unawares. One of these unwritten rules seems to be: "Forget all that goofy, goody-two-shoes policy stuff about everyone on wikipedia needing sources -- Fringe Theory Noticeboard Regulars don't need no stinkin' sources. In fact they can even DISCREDIT and OVERRULE all your sources on their word and mutual consensus alone. Why? Because they are Fringe Theory Noticeboard Regulars. They don't need to show where it is "discredited" in scholarship, FTN Regulars do the discrediting around here based on their expertise and credentials." If you will notice, every time I (and many other editors) have ever been "hauled into" ANI by these same editors the last couple years, it always seems to be for committing the cardinal sin of disagreeing with the Fringe Theory Regulars, about some school of thought with tons of representative sources they have proscribed by their fiat, despite the fact that nobody in actual scholarship has even published such an opinion as they have. I am not the only editor who is becoming more and more deeply concerned about the ever-increased coddling of this behavior and these FTN editors whose Holy Word can trump all sources. And since FTN is vested with this kind of power to change the appearance of scholarship as represented in wikipedia-land, FTN becomes a magnet toward which people with the same mentalities gravitate and agree with one another against the sources. This block really brings it home to me that more people at the top need to know about the flagrant abuse going on with no accountability for FTN. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW the best way I can think of to determine FRINGE, and, by extension, WEIGHT, is by consulting the more highly regarded reference sources aimed at the academic or "reference" audience. I am, still, getting together some additions to the various "encyclopedic articles" lists for various religion/philosophy/pseudoscience/occult WikiProjects, and I would tend to think that taking them as a whole, because obviously no single individual reference source is necessarily perfect, we can use the content in them to determine what the content of both our existing "main" articles on various topics should be, as well as, possibly/probably, as an indicator of what child articles should or should not exist. Yeah, a lot of, hell, most of the people around here aren't perfect, including those who frequent the FTN. But they also tend to be, unfortunately, in a lot of cases, at least among the better ones we have in general. If there are any commonly available recent reference sources relative to whatever topics this is about, getting together for everyone lists of the subjects they discuss, like articles in "encyclopedic" sources, that anyone can use, might be among the better ways of dealing with a lot of these topics. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
John, you are basically telling me that these are Uber-editors, that they can wade into any scholarly dispute and settle what scholars are "right" and what scholars are "wrong", and they don't require any sources, or indeed any explanation of why these scholars are right and those are wrong, aside from their status as Uber-editors, and mortals like myself woiuld be wisest to steer clear of them as much as possible to avoid getting blocked for a week for disagreeing with the Uber-editors and agreeing with the academic references they proscribed by their fiat. Stop trying to sugar coat this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If that is what you perceive, then I believe you are either mistaken or I misphrased things. Speaking strictly for myself, I tend to think that if there are experienced or knowledgable editors relating specifically to the topic of a given article, they should probably be given more credible. There are times that I have disagreed with the decisions of the FTN noticeboard, too, and I don't think that, given the staggering number of articles we have today, that it is even reasonable to assume that any individual's or group of individuals' opinion on some of the more obscure topics would be likely to even know where to look on the net, if there actually is anything reliable on the net about it. And I don't think that "fringe" necessarily means "right" or "wrong", either. But according to policies and guidelines, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, we are supposed to be based on the sources which are considered most reliable in the relevant academic community or communities, provided any deal with the topic of course (several individual TV show episodes probably don't qualify) and more or less using the most highly regarded and relied upon reference sources as an indicator of how we apply WEIGHT and FRINGE. So, like I said, if you can find highly regarded reference sources, as someone who has himself gone at times to be a person self-appointed to express opinions, I would certainly say I wa rong if, for instnce, I found that the reference source I consulted was itself promoting a fringe or minority opinion according to the broader relevant academic community, and I assume others who frequent the FTN more frequently probably would as well. So, while I very definitely think that your last statement above seems rather emotional, and, dare I say, judgmental and prejudicial about others, and also, honestly, putting words in my mouth, I would also say that, if you or anyone else honestly believes the opinions apparently establishing consensus there are wrong, then you or anyone else are free to find the sources to establish that. Otherwise, well, none of us win all of our disputes. Sometimes, particularly if the matter of contention is something that an individual editor has some particularly strong personal opinions about, maybe the best thing to do often is to just leave the content under dispute until such time as you can produce the material which might well be enough to get others to change their opinions regarding fringeyness and weight issues. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't you see, there is no way to satisfy them with any amount of academic scholarship on cannabis, because they have unilaterally and unreasonably declared all academic scholarship on cannabis "fringe". None of the sources have refuted this research, but they are arbitrarily choosing to give weight only to the relatively few sources that don't mention it at all as if these fewer sources somehow negated with their silence, the far larger number of sources that do discuss this theory. NOBODY in scholarship has called this "fringe" - why not? because that is a transparently unscholarly position with regard to open hypotheses. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A few things. First, this is the first time you indicated that the subject in question is cannibis. I assume we are talking about cannibis in terms of marijuana, as opposed to its use as a form of hemp, right? FWIW, I don't think anyone actually challenges cannibis's usefulness as hemp, and historically it has been well considered in that regard. In general, regarding the effects of marijuana/cannibis, I think that there probably are some generally well-recognized reference sources in the parapsychology/pseudoscience/new age/occultism field which discuss at least some of the related matters which might be useful.
In a lot of other ways, though, I think part of the problem might be about matters of WEIGHT and other guidelines, which are kind of unavoidable around here. I recently started a userspace page at User:John Carter/Opinions. In some regards, I think a lot of content regarding these potentially controversial topics might best be covered in some other WF entities. One of the things I propose there is that, maybe, we try to create, and somehow arrange for high appearance on search engine lists, some "books" on controversial topics similar in some ways to the Greenhaven "at issues" books. Maybe, like I say there, this could be done by presenting some of the "draft" "position papers" reflecting various views on the topic in question in the Signpost, where they could get some further input and material, before having all the essays, and possibly a discussion forum between the writers, in a final Wikibook "book". There are a lot of topics of this kind, which get a lot of attention in some areas regarding some things pretty much ignored by others, and, maybe, in some ways, pieces like those might be the better way to present material, if we can get enough attention to them for others to know of them or be able to quickly find them.
Sorry for blathering on, by the way, but I'm stuck in the hospital for a few days because of a gastrointestinl problem, and typing and doing stuff here is one of the few less than pleasant options I have right now. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are so many areas where wikipedia has plunged into enforcing its "own" quirky positions and stances on selected issues like this that one could easily do a spectral analysis to see what it represents. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Messapus (King of Sicyon)[edit]

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Messapus (King of Sicyon) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messapus (King of Sicyon) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't participate unless I'm unblocked. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly not a hoax; refer to the German and other language articles on the topic. Messapus is listed as a king on the Sicyon kinglists that follow Castor of Rhodes as should be easily verifiable, try researching "Messapus" "Sicyon" Vanjagenije -- Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know you can't participate. That was just an automated message. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is that your only response? Meanwhile you continue to say maybe I have written a hoax? For real? OMG why don't you just type "Messapus" "Sicyon" in the searchbar or rightclick on those words if you think I made it up. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Vanjagenije Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
My block, which was wholly unwarranted, came without warning on an entirely unrelated matter one minute after I created the article. I can assure you I would have added sufficient references before you ever got there, otherwise. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibbi-Sipish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock with Turkish IP[edit]

Hi Til, regarding your input on sockpuppeting, i would like to mention that HistorNE's ip and related socks came from Republica Srpska (former Yugoslavia), and so far i have not encountered any related activity from Turkey, but keep me posted - i suspect that we are speaking about possible meat puppets as well (i've seen similar patterns of editing from other parts of Europe on Kurdish and Iranian related topics).GreyShark (dibra) 19:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

proposing Saura be merged into Cheraw people[edit]

Merge discussion for Saura[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Saura, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Uyvsdi (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Hi Til, WB. You asked: Question for PiCo- you just said "Aramaic Matthew" refers to the same idea. But Aramaic is not Hebrew (it is as different as German from English) so are we certain this is really the "same thing" or would that be the perspective from a considerable distance? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:24, 19 February 2014 I'm answering here because that page is getting clogged already. I'm not an expert on these things (probably not on anything), but these are the names I've come across in my reading - Aramaic Matthew, Original Matthew, Hebrew gospel. The last is sort-of connected with the Hebrew gospel that Jerome talks about, but nobody knows if that the same thing that Papias mentions, or even if there were just one Hebrew gospel (gospel used by the Jewish Christian churches) or several.

James Edwards is a reputable scholar and his book on the Hebrew Gospel isn't fringe, except in the sense that he's had few if any converts to his view. PiCo (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Till Eulenspiegel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stream of consciousness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on user SeanKesser[edit]

Hello Til, a possible sockpuppet user:SeanKesser has recently engaged articles Hashem Shabani and Iranian gender restrictions in education and many more with an army of socks supporting him. I suspect this is same Shaushka/HistorNE we already know. The case is filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Roundhead[edit]

Dear Til, I am a Metallurgic engineer and I have changed the page of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca where it said "melted" for "used", because this was technically impossible at that time. I have substituted it for "used" because as I explain it to you in the "Talk" box, horseshoes at that time were done hammering a piece of pig iron to convert it into mild steel. Once converted it could not be melt again (at that time) because the melting point of the mild steel is much higher than the one of the pig iron ant the forges of the time could not reach that temperature even with bellows. It was only Benjamin Huntsman who discovered the crucible melting process in 1740 the first that could melt mild steel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebanobre (talkcontribs) 11:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alvar Nuñez Cabezqa de Vaca Horseshoes melting[edit]

Dear Til, I am a Metallurgic engineer and I have changed the page of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca where it said "melted" for "used", because this was technically impossible at that time. I have substituted it for "used" because as I explain it to you in the "Talk" box, horseshoes at that time were done hammering a piece of pig iron to convert it into mild steel. Once converted it could not be melt again (at that time) because the melting point of the mild steel is much higher than the one of the pig iron ant the forges of the time could not reach that temperature even with bellows. It was only Benjamin Huntsman who discovered the crucible melting process in 1740 the first that could melt mild steel.--Ebanobre (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Geats and SergeWoodzing's CN tags[edit]

Hey there, pursuant to the conversations at 1) Talk:Geats#Etymology and 2) Talk:Lands_of_Sweden#.22Geats.22.3F and 3) Talk:Götaland#Sourcing, could you weigh in at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Removing_source_tags_without_sources_or_discussion? I think, as seen in the Talk Pages and the articles themselves that Geat is unambiguously established as the term, but the one user is using the Cite Needed tags to undermine the article's integrity in pursuit of his singular agenda. Any word to add in there would be helpful, thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag[edit]

Hi Dear Til Eulenspiegel, Please Read about Dr Dhillon; and then Please Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Should You require anymore assistance, kindly make it sure to leave a message for Me !! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 16:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I often see disputes where a wikipedian editor disagrees with a published source and is arguing his own claimed expertise versus the viewpoint expressed by the published source or sources. However, I typically tend to side with the published sources. So, can you show me any published sources indicating that this work has been discredited by others? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Til, sorry for replying after a day's gap. I AM sure by now You have realized that: "Professor Dhillon attended the University of Wales where he received a B.S. in electrical and electronic engineering and a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. He received a Ph.D. in industrial engineering from the University of Windsor." He has not done his Masters and Ph.D. in history but in engineering. Hence, I tagged His reference in the light of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). But, in specific response to Your question, I have never come across any published sources indicating that Dr Dhillon's work has been discredited by others. But anyways, Dear Friend, do You still hold that My argument(s) for tagging the Reference are not good enough, if Yes, I would not revert You, if You are looking forward to remove the Tag. Thanks !! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion at Colony of Virginia[edit]

Greetings! In the midst of an overhaul of the article "Colony of Virginia", I noticed that several edits I had made were unofficially reverted (without any sort of edit summary or indication as to why or what of the several edits I made was problematic). I've started a thread on the page Talk:Colony of Virginia#Unexplained reversion to discuss it. Cheers!Morgan Riley (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Following a sockpuppetry investigation, user:HistorNE was tagged as a long-term abuse case. I would like to point out that user:Shaushka, whom you previously suspected as related was included in the case.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey and belated thank you![edit]

Thanks for backing me up on the Geats issue, sorry didn't get around to it when my block was lifted. Absurd. And I'm glad we also seem to share the same view (in addition to the fact that "Geats" is a word), that the lazy admins who don't actually look into an issue but rather follow bureaucracy like a pack of Vogons is a tremendous strain on wiki for the past 5-6 years since the letter of the rules took precedence over the spirit. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Akiva ben Joseph[edit]

This is the closest thing I could find. "Akiva was instrumental in drawing up the canon of the Tanakh." But it's talking about the selection of books that were considered canonical, not the specific lettering. Please direct me to something more substantial if it is there. Editor2020 (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What the heck? how could he draw up the canon without drawing up the specific lettering? The statement you quoted doesn't mean he just listed the titles of these books, read on further. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Christians have several canons, but none of them specify a particular lettering, so that doesn't follow at all. Editor2020 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Read Masoretic text some more and understand what it is. It is not a Christian canon, and it does have a specific lettering. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:111.125.201.50 reported by User:Elassint (Result: ), which is objecting to your edits at Mannus. Your name is mentioned in the body of the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Bab-el-MandebNicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 21:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hi! I see that you reverted my edits on the Bab-el-Mandeb. Though correct, I believe it's misleading to simply write that it was the exit route for the first modern humans out of Africa 60,000 years ago. Had I not studied the matter beforehand, I would have mistakenly concluded that hominins were in Africa until 60,000 BP. I think that this precision is enough within the scope of the article to justify a footnote. Have a nice day,

Nicolas Perrault (what did I screw up again?) 21:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If it can be cited with a reference making this specific claim specifically in relation to the article topic Bab-el-Mandeb there is no problem, this is according to WP:SYNTH etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: I wouldn't even know what the correct article is for that information, just that this isn't it -- but I'm sure you know what the proper article would be for an explanation of that. Usually the solution is simply to work in a wiki-link to that article (whatever that is) into the text so that anyone who wants to know more about that other topic can click and get the full explanation there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ge'ez script[edit]

I have posted to the talk page. --RevivesDarks (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nephilim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deluge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

On Den (pharaoh)[edit]

I was wondering about this Heracleopolis myself, but notice that the 36th year entry of the Cairo stone for Den actually reads "Residing at Heracleopolis and at the lake of the god Herishef". The god Herishef is a local god of Herakleopolis Magna, see here Heryshaf. Hence I think that this Heracleopolis of Den is Herakleopolis Magna. The article on the H. Magna, says the town came to prominence in the 1st intermediate period, which does not preclude the existence of more ancient settlements there. Maybe we could decide that it is indeed H. Magna which is referred to on the Cairo stone by looking at the hieroglyphs for year 36 of Den to see how the town name is written. I don't know where to find this but he you do, let me know! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I have been able to find the original hieroglyphic text of the Cairo Stone online before, so it shouldn't be too hard to find... I am certain it doesn't have the Greek name Herakleopolis there at any rate... And we wouldn't really have the authority to "decide" ourselves if whatever it says really means Hieracleopolis, we would have to cite someone who thinks this... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I agree about the GReek name, I mean that the Egyptian name of the city is probably well known and thus if it shows up on the Cairo Stone, the identification with H. Magna is immediate. I don't think this would qualify as research if the two hieroglyphs (on the stone and the ancient city name) exactly match. Furthemore, this is only for a piping anyway. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

POV Words to avoid at Mi'kmaq[edit]

I'm asking you to revert yourself as you are now at 4RR having removed 'states' and replacing it with 'asserts' - "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." If I have to revert you to make ths NPOV then there is no reason for me not to report you. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought 4RR stood for four reverts. Those were not reverts, sorry. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Replied almost immediately but didn't see the edit conflict -- 'm wrong, you are at 3RR.[11], [12][13]. Your wording is still pov and should be changed back to states or wrote, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We see "asserts" in plenty of articles and I still feel it is called for here more than "states", but still adding that is not a revert! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

HR Puf/Counterculture[edit]

Lmao, as I knew you'd come back on that :) I used to watch it as a kid, but I always thought it was just kinda low-budget weird. What's the case for this inclusion? Pseudo-psychedelic strangeness? I don't recall much of the content, actually. Best wishes...Learner001 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe time for a refresher thanks to modern technology you can find that and Lidsville, Bugaloos etc at your convenience! What content there was included mainly, thinly disguised or undisguised countercultural references (eg "H.R.") The case for inclusion, when I said 'the most c-c fare ever' of course I meant on network TV, there was more c-c stuff in other media of course... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember Lidsville as well. Bizarre. I wish the "H.R" article had some link-back, so to speak, but if you're confident, I rest.Learner001 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Look at it this way, that show could never have debuted 5 years earlier, or even 5 years later, it was definitely a product of 1969... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I see you are adding cites on the Timeline in response to the cn notes. I've been thinking about undertaking that for each entry for some time, so I guess now is as good a time as any, and it's very good to see that perhaps I won't be alone on it. I guess just start at the beginning, generally anyway? Thoughts?Learner001 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
'Fifty lemons are a burden for one person, but for fifty people they are treasures' - African proverb Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assyria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hatti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Til_Eulenspiegel reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Ethiopia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  User:Dpmuk (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow telling lies about me on FTN[edit]

Excuse me User:Paul Barlow, but exactly what gives you the right to go to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and spin outright lies you fabicated about what you ASS-ume I supposedly "believe", not one word of which is correct? You do not speak for me, I always speak for myself, and do not presume to yourself that because I am currently blocked this lying behaviour suddenly becomes legitimate or that I will not seek remedy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Same goes for User:Dougweller, who should know better if he is going to be a trusted admin. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a simple solution, just state that you accept the scientific view of evolution and that should put paid to the suggestion that you don't. That would show that those of us who think you reject it are wrong, although being wrong is quite different to being a liar. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Doug, it is none of your damn business what editors "think" about anything for you to judge them. I come here to make sure all viewpoints on all sides continue to be represented as long as it can be sourced that they are widespread. You guys don't have to tell lies about me that I am a "biblical literalist" when I am not a biblical literalist, never said I was one, and don't have anything against those who are if that's what they choose. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was describing the sources of your ideas insofar as I have been able to make sense of them. So you are not a biblical literalist then? All your edits and your particular branch of race-related diffussionism are entirely consistent with ideas derived from the traditions of black nationalist thought that emerged from Garveyism (and later evolved into Rastafarianism) - down to your cannabis preoccupation on the Kaneh bosem issue. I never said you subscribed to any specific instance of such beliefs. They exist in many variant forms and are really a tradition of idea. Part of the problem, as always Til, is that you become utterly dogmatic about what you think other people believe, but are deeply evasive about yourself. Evasiveness combined with dogmatism does not encourage confidence, nor do wild accusations of "lies" . You should look up the meaning of that word. Paul B (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am impressed with the psychoanalytic detective work you have done going down the rabbit hole of my contribution history and perhaps flattered but I am afraid your conclusions are entirely erroneous, Paul... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean, if I had been going around to a bunch of evolution articles and making controversial edits this might make some sense but I have never done anything remotely like that at all... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have a rant on your page that I've always seen as an incivility, too. I don't get how it's not. I may be wrong, but I think you should change it.75* 01:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Til, you'd be an idiot to go around evolution articles doing that, and you aren't an idiot. Nor am I. In my post above I carefully avoided saying you were a biblical literalist. I suggested a simple solution, state that you accept the theory of evolution as understood by the majority of scientists (rewording now to be explicit). You responded by ignoring that solution. You've been quite happy to accuse me of racist bigotry and to claim that I think certain subjects are "verboten" - in other words to tell people what I believe, but as Paul says you evade any statements about what you believe saying it's none of anyone's business. So again, are you willing to frankly share your opinions on evolution? Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is this your litmus test for "good" editors, Doug? When you get it officially worked into policy that all editors must affirm a belief in Evolution to be considered trustworthy by Doug Weller, then I will play your game. As it is now, my wikipedia edits have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, I have no comment whatsoever on evolution one way or the other, don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it, and I wish User:Jimbo Wales would see the intolerant way you button-hole and harass contributors about what hypotheses or beliefs they personally may or may not subscribe to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it was a simple question that you are evading and turning into an attack of me. Fine, I won't ask again, you've made it clear you are unwilling to discuss your beliefs. We, quite rightly, allow editors with any beliefs to edit so far as their beliefs don't interfere with their editing in an NPOV fashion. I think yours do, specifically includng you apparent attitude towards science (since you won't discuss your beliefs we can only infer them of course). I think it was reasonable for me to assume that a response to my question about evolution that was directly under mine and started 'Doug' was a response to me and my post, not to something at FTN. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure now that we even share the same understanding of the word "science". To me, "science" is simply knowledge that can be derived from use of the scientific method. "Pseudo-science" by contrast involves "establishing" hypotheses by going around trying to persecute anyone who dissents from the favored hypothesis with peer pressure, thus bypassing all of that experimentation stuff etc. that is the scientific method. The Soviet Union was known for that latter type of "scientific method" - and it is still prevalent as you can have one government whose scientists come up with one DNA result (or whatever) and another government whose scientists get the exact opposite result, and both calling each other fringe to suit various agendas. And all of it requires a major leap of faith for the average consumer since things like DNA results are not as easily demonstrable as say an apple falling to the ground. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
And for the record, the reason I do not edit evolution articles is because it is not my area. I could care less what anyone thinks about those articles, since I don't even have them on my watchlist. I have no doubt there are disputes in that field, or maybe not, I don't really know since I am no expert on evolution. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for a period of 2 months for your recent personal attacks at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, in combination with your apparent long-term attitude of tendentious, fringe-pushing editing at that article. The length of the block is in keeping with your block log – a total of seven prior blocks, of which two (of one and two weeks length respectively) were very recent. Fut.Perf. 10:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That was an appeal for arbitration. Your response was to block me and call me "fringe". Despite what you think in your pea bvrain, believers in religion are NOT a "fringe". That is only your bigoted, nazi-like attitude against religions you don't like, which you sir have now exposed for the entire world to see. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
And regardless of the merits of the block, if you make any other personal attacks like that here, I will revoke your ability to edit your talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, done. [14] --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hey bud. You got my empathy with this Doug. Clearly I am not the only person he blocks because he looks at words i say with cross-eyed biased eyes. You cant correct a 2+5 =45 because he'll say your 2+5 = 7 is original material that you figured out yourself and youre not allowed to do that. But i thought i would answer your question on Dangun in Korea, and open up contact with you if you wish to reasearch together.

At Dangun topic, I dont know Korean but i know chronology. The 2357bc in the text is 24 years to the 25th year 2333bc, so it is not 40th, because 2333bc as Yao's 40th year is a rule of 2372-2272bc. It is Yao that varies in all four examples not Dangung. Does this answer the puzzle for you? It should. Don't know how long my comment on the talk page concerning Bible will hold before your Doug gets to it. I see he permeates all the blocked people. Contact me, if youre a man of Bible Genesis faith. I have some info stuff you might find interesting as it cracks open a whole new meaning for the word judgement and a moment in time (perhaps this current probable year) that the information thus decides how many billions die. I am a personal advocate of preserving knowledge via DVD and flash drives (each vulnerable in their own way thru this coming disaster). And even purge and destroy after the disaster the media of those who thought they would bring trash thru it into a new earth. (PS. king Reu A.Anipada who is king Yu of Ur Xia Sumer the son of Peleg Mes.Anipada ruling 2207-2127bc (80 years) but also accredited the first 60, and still active participate until 2107bc is not the Yu who brought Chinese from India to Xia China in 1437bc. Calendars are a tree, they all branch from each other as they evolve in transit around the world. That's how i know the calendar year 2233bc which is a marker in history as 180 leap days of 720 years, but Yu (Reu) has not ruled 100 years in this year. It is Shelah who is 100 from his birth in 2333bc to this year 2233bc when Peleg's 36-year life lacks 180 epagum days, and another 180 leap days takes us to the comet that began all the global disasters of the exodus year. Rather in 2233bc Reu is only 6 (his 7th year) and does not become king until he is 32 in 2207bc. The city Ur is the same age he is because it started with his father's house (the palace) in 2269bc until it grew to be 30,000 people at his father's death when Yu (Reu was then 209). By the way the Chinese traditional 464 was taken from Eber who was born 2303-1839bc. So all the Genesis figures are there, the Chinese just shuffle them because they are confused about the gramatical text of their forefathers. (unsigned comment by Elijahovah 13:30, May 8, 2014‎

Block extended for block evasion and further disruption[edit]

I have extended your block by 6 months for block evasion and further disruption on Geats, per WP:DUCK. If you wish to appeal this block, please use WP:UTRS. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

And since you insist, I've made the block indefinite. Talk to UTRS. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

Take a break, Til[edit]

I know you have very clear beliefs regarding matters of religion and related topics around here, and that you can and will fight for them. That can be good, provided it doesn't go too far. It is extremey hard not to see your recent actions, including sockpuppeting after the block extension, as having gone too far. Such actions do nothing to increase the possibility of your ever being allowed to return, and, honestly, may well ultimately be counterproductive. I know that there are a lot of PD sources relating to your primary topics of interest which we would benefit from having more readily available. The Ethiopian Synaxarion is one that comes to mind. I'm also not sure whether we have all the texts of the Ethiopian Bible available yet, particularly the 3 Mekyabun books. My apologies if I misspelled that, but so far as I remember there has only been one self-published edition ever printed in English, and that only a few years ago. Proofread copies of those texts, and the other books in the Ethiopian Bible not included in others, would be very useful at wikisource, wikibooks, or wikiversity. Helping develop content on those sister sites would probably make it easier for you to get the current indefinite block lifted, too. I sincerely urge you to take recourse to productive actions of those kinds rather than in continuing in your recent extremely problematic conduct. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Two responses. First, I regret to say that I am not as certain that you will be able to edit anonymously as you are. Actually, I am far from sure of that. Secondly, honestly, I would wonder why you would want to continue to edit this site if you hold it in such low regard. I more or less retired from this site some months ago, because it struck me that some of the sister sites, like wikisource, can have more reliable and better regarded information than we ever will. At present, I have around 100 pages of the 1923 Encyclopedia Britannica more or less done, and am proofreading some other pges already done by other, more experienced, editors there, to make sure I get my pages right. I also have around 100 pages of the Cambridge History of American Literature available for adding here as well. Sources like those, and others, like Adrian Fortescue's The Lesser Eastern Churches, are among the most highly regarded out there. Those, and some of the texts, like I said above, would be immeasurably useful at wikisource not only because they could be read there, but also as bases for comparison of our own articles. Also, honestly, a separate page on any of the individual entries in the Ethiopian Synaxarion would almost certainly be one of the first pages, if not the first page, to return in a Google search for anyone looking for that name. And, yes, they do try to separate out articles from such sources as separate pages. Like I said, I've been spending more time developing that content recently, because, ultimately, it is probably more useful for people looking for that information than some of our own articles would be. The same could be said for articles in academic journals. I would love to have translations of, honestly, damn near anything from even older journals available to me for some pages here on topics not well covered in English. Adding such content there would be a major boon. And, yeah, if you look over my recent edits, I'm actually trying, a little, to make others realize that as well. And, honestly, such pages there are much less likely for vandalism or prejudicial editing than our own, so the time spent there probably produces longer lasting results. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No comment on these incidents. Til, I hope you will remain interested and still stick to those subjects that you liked. These blocks will teach you some lesson, I would expect that they won't have negative effect on any sort of creativity that you have got. OccultZone (Talk) 04:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopian and other Biblical texts and important texts on Wikisource[edit]

I admit to being somewhat surprised by the 2012 Coogan Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible by it not including the books unique to the Ethiopian canon, and possibly other canons as well, as well as those books indicated as being "important" to one or more traditions, but not necessarily canonical. One thing that could be done would be to put any public domain texts up on wikisource. I do note that it really only takes 2 individuals to verify the transcription of a text there. Between us, we might be able to be those two, and it would allow for more ready access to those texts, and possibly make them more broadly known so that in the future other reference books might include them. If this would interest you, drop me an e-mail and let me know. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assistance on Africa AfDs[edit]

Hi Til, spotted your comment at Wikiproject Ethiopia. Ping me if you need assistance / sourcing for Africa-related AfDs. Djembayz (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)