User talk:Krakkos

Welcome!

Hello, Krakkos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

move Celts (modern) to Celtic identity

I am going to revert this edit. Such move requests are not done using this depreciated template.

If you want to put in a request for a page move please read WP:RM and follow the guidance of how to place such a request on to the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Greeks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

These are really important, especially when there is no clear justification for an edit. Having found that your edits to Celts seem to contradict the source (which suggests you just ignored the source and added your personal analysis), I'm tempted to revert most of your edits as unjustified. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And not to pile on, but at Ptolemaic Dynasty, all I was asking was that you cite either a reliable source, include an edit summary, or cite a discussion to gain consensus. I clearly assumed good faith as noted by "reverted good faith edits by". I'm hoping you're not that IP, or in cahoots with that IP, because if so that could be considered sock puppetry. I am, for the time being, going to assume that that's just my paranoia kicking in, but I will monitor it. Edit summary, edit summary, edit summary. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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.

Cimmerians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alyattes and Iranian

Sea Peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Aegean and Achaeans

Seleucid dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Olympianism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaulish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (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) 10:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Military history of ancient Gaul

I don't agree with redirecting this to "battles involving the Gauls." Military history is more than a list of battles. It can include articles on military structure and organization, types of equipment, subcategories on military commanders and ranks, and so on. Compare Category:Military history of ancient Rome. I think you might want to ask for some input at WP:WikiProject Celts on some of the changes you're making singlehandedly. No offense, but you're making rather sweeping changing for someone with fewer than 300 edits. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. See my response at my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Helvetii

Hello. You have made several edits to various pages changing the identification of the Helvetii as Gauls rather than Celts. On what sources do you base these edits?  Sandstein  22:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talkpage. Krakkos (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Britannica

Thanks for your work but I really don't think the Britannica is a satisfactory source. See for instance the discussion at [1] and my comments at Talk:Tocharians. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

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.

Cimbrian War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus and Marcus Junius Silanus

Gannicus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Castus

John of Gothia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Doros

Kassites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hittite

Samnites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of the Colline Gate

Third Servile War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Freedom fighters

Wusun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Green eyes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

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.

Hellenistic period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gandara

Taurini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ligurian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hittites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Europeans (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) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Yule, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrián de Moxica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nemesis and Native Americans (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) 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandal Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandal Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SpinningSpark 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent article moves: no rationale given

Greetings. I wanted to ask about your rationale for several recent moves to pages (namely Norse architecture and Norse art), as you left no reasoning for the page moves nor initiated any discussion for such a move, nor any evidence of the prior names. It is customary prior to making any move that could possibly be considered controversial to raise the issue via a template message so that others may discuss the move, and even in those cases, leaving a rationale for the move. Morgan Riley (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vandal Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cartagena and Patrician (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) 12:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suev* vs Sueb*

Why are you suppressing the spelling "Suevi" etc.? It is as common in English as the alternative. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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.

Kingdom of the Burgundians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Honorius and Worms

Feletheus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zeno

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cobandi 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Buri (Germanic tribe) 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Be Bold but not Reckless

Read talk pages first. Talk:Anatolians_(Indo-European_people)#Requested_move. Cavann (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Now you are being disruptive by creating a copy of Ancient Anatolians in List of ancient peoples of Anatolia Cavann (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Category Tags

Hi Krakkos - you seem to have spent a good portion of today removing category tags from a massive range of articles. While I applaud your diligence, I'm very unclear as to what your aim is, and as a result I'm tempted to start reverting your changes. Using Edit Summaries would perhaps make it clearer to the other users watching the pages you are editing as to what you are trying to accomplish. Gabhala (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no problem with that per se, but you have been blazing a trail through literally dozens of articles, with no explanation of exactly what you're doing. That's bound to raise some hackles, or at the very least, eyebrows... Gabhala (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Vangio and Sido, Krakkos!

Wikipedia editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have reviewed and passed your new article. Great Work!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catualda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divide and conquer (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) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:North Germanic peoples

Was there a discussion somewhere about emptying the category? I see you are moving all pages that had Category:North Germanic peoples to Category:North Germanic peoples... Howcome? — -dainomite   20:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Heya, I saw your reply, I was just curious howcome you were merging them or if there was a discussion with other folks about it somewhere. Cheers, — -dainomite   20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Krakkos. You have new messages at Dainomite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Normans, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Goths, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julius Classicus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• [[Category:Gaulish people]]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

infoboxes

Are you planning to transclude Template:Infobox Slavs anywhere else other than Slavs? If not, this is then improper. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Germanic peoples redux

Howcome you are removing Category:North Germanic peoples, Category:East Germanic peoples, Category:West Germanic peoples from articles and changing the categories to be a soft redirect to Category:Germanic peoples? Maunus and I voiced our disagreement with you doing this before and now you are back at it again. Was there a discussion held somewhere to remove all these categories from these pages or are you doing it on your own volition? — -dainomite   17:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you have made a mess of many categories with no explanation or even a single edit summary. It's hard to AGF in this case. Your edits are disruptive, whether intentional or not, and I am tempted to report you to WP:ANI. Sweeping changes such as these should be discussed first and only enacted after a consensus has been reached. As it is, it will take quite an effort to reverse what you have done.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prekmurje Slovene 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vandals 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 '''Vandals''' were a [Germanic peoples|East Germanic tribe]] who in 429 under king [[Genseric]] entered [[North Africa during Antiquity|Africa]] and by 439

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles that a glance at your talk page show other editors are likely to find objectionable. Enforcing a pause while this is discussed.. 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.  SpinningSpark 23:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the quality of this editor's edits but since when is "sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles" a reason for a block? What happened to WP:BOLD? And for a freakin' week? This is some total bullshit here, unless I'm missing some AN/I discussion or something. (Given all that I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was a sock puppet or somethin'). Volunteer Marek  01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that since he was blocked for a week his recent contribs were akin to his German category edits but far worse. His previous mass edits which as you can read a few sections up almost resulted in User:WilliamThweatt going to WP:AN/I. — -dainomite   01:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for "far worse"? And "almost resulted in ... going to AN/I" is not the same as "consensus for a long block". It just means someone once made a threat, perhaps empty, of "going to AN/I". That's all. This looks like a textbook bogus block. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And speaking of AN/I, I'm perfectly open to an explanation here - maybe there was some kind of discussion or rationale that I'm missing. But a week block is pretty dang long. Especially for a user with a clean block log. So either you guys know something I don't, or this is total bullshit. And if no illumination with regard to the relevant discussion or rationale is forthcoming, then yeah... I'm going to AN/I. Volunteer Marek  01:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that there was evidence of anything, or that going to AN/I was the same as consensus for a long block? — -dainomite   02:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So no evidence, no AN/I discussion, no consensus and it's a long block - then you agree that this was an unwarranted block?  Volunteer Marek  02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if an AN/I discussion ever took place, you are free to search for one if you would like. — -dainomite   02:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The sequence of events leading to this block are as follows. Krakkos made this edit without leaving an edit summary. I undid the edit for the reason explained in my edit summary. Krakkos then immediately reapplied the edit, again without leaving a summary or otherwise explaining. I then noticed that the user was making similar edits on an industrial scale, all without edit summary. I then noticed that the user had warnings (including a final warning) on their page for edit warring and for repeatedly making large scale controversial changes to categories. The new edits seemed to be an extension of the category edits. This editor does not communicate in any way with other editors and responds to warnings by merely carrying on. The editing environment is poisoned for other editors by such behavious, and since it was large scale and currently ongoing I blocked to protect the encyclopaedia as administrators are supposed to do. The purpose of this block is to force Krakkos to discuss with others before continuing. The situation I could see was similar to an out of control bot, it is pointless talking to an entity that won't talk back, block is the only option. The length of the block is irrelevant here, as with a bot block, the block can be lifted as soon as the problem is fixed. SpinningSpark 08:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is not leaving an edit summary a reason for a weeklong ban? Is reverting an editor once a reason for a weeklong ban? Regarding my unintentional revert at Vandals, i thought i had made a mistake while doing my original edit, not noticing later that you had previously reverted me. Last time i checked there were no separate rules between reverting a regular editor and an administrator. You present me as a rogue editor based upon a warning i recieved from User:Saddhiyama. This incident is yet another example of poor admin behaviour; on 2 August 2013, Saddhiyama accused me of "disruptive editing" for correcting an obvious WP:OC at Normans, then, two minutes later, he gives me a "final warning" for a harmless edit i made at Goths two months earlier in June 2013. Just like you used this unjustied final warning to block me, this unjustified block can be used in the future to discredit my edits. I admit that did i could have been more communicative regarding the Vandals dispute, but this block was unfair. Krakkos (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pan-Germanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian (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) 09:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits on Latins

Hey Krakkos. I just wanted to give you a notification that I have reverted your blanking and redirect of Latins. At this point in that article's existence, given the amount of edit history in Latins, doing an edit such as blanking the page would be considered highly controversial. I would advise first either nominating Latins for articles for deletion, or starting a proposal to merge Latins into Latins (Italic tribe). Also, in the future, please try to avoid converting any article to a redirect without consensus. Latins had redirects that pointed to it, but because of the edit you performed that resulted in Latins redirecting to Latin (disambiguation), a bot performed automated edits to fix these redirects, which were then double redirects, and had them all point towards Latin (disambiguation). In most cases, the work that these bots do to remove double redirects is very helpful, but not in this case due to the redirects they edited ended up pointing to the wrong target as a result of your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middle Low German 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:

• Low German provided a large number of [[loanword]]s to languages spoken around the [[Baltic Sea]]] as a result of the activities of Hanseatic traders. It is considered the largest single source of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Germanic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (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) 09:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

howdy

Hello Krakkos, you can call me 74. Over at the West Germanic tribes page, you redirected to another article, citing a source that the topics were not the same. I reverted your redirect, and added some sources. But it looks like today, you are also redirectly most of the Italic articles. This does not seem right to me. Do you not think wikipedia should have articles on historical topics? Notability is not temporary, right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Howdy 74, i'm not quite sure what you mean. Did i do something wrong by redirecting Italic tribes to Italic peoples, just like Germanic tribes and Slavic tribes are redirected to Germanic peoples and Slavic peoples? What have i done to deserve being stalked by you and Yngvadottir? This is really frustrating :( Krakkos (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Krakkos, I see several messages above about your converting articles into redirects without discussion, and changing links to efface the traces that they once existed as articles. You've been told before that this is not always going to meet with agreement and that you should therefore discuss such actions on article talkpages. In answer to your question, one of your delinkings brought your West Germanic tribes edit to my attention via my watchlist; which is the kind of thing we have watchlists for. I see that you cited a source in support of your repeat redirecting of that particular article, and that's good - but did it occur to you to check whether that is the dominant academic viewpoint (or basically to perform a WP:BEFORE check on the topic? Academics do sometimes disagree; and also it is possible to overgeneralize what they write in one particular publication. Please consider whether removing these articles - as opposed to tagging them as unsourced or preferably, looking for a source to add yourself - is helpful to the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel stalked, that is not my intent. But this is wikipedia, everybody has an edit-history, right? It is there, so that people can look up what sort of work other editors are doing. Getting other eyeballs to look at stuff, and mutually helping improve stuff, is the whole point of making it the 'pedia anyone can edit.

  In this particular case, Yngvadottir had the west germanic tribes on their watchlist, and when you redirected that article, blanking all the content, Yngvadottir mentioned it to me, saying they didn't have time to work on it properly. I'm no expert, but a quick WP:GOOG turned up dozens of sources, so I added them. I also added the source you found, into the article; it's an improvement, thanks for finding the Wolfram stuff.

  Before posting a note here, I looked at your history, to see what kind of editing you like, and what kind of topics you work in. The recent Italic stuff, I brought up because it was different from the West Germanic tribes... you reworked the redirects, but no deletion was involved. I don't know how those should be organized, speaking frankly.  :-)   Not my field. It depends on what the WP:RS actually say, and also, since they are pure redirect, on what the readership comes looking for. As editors, though, we should try not to impose structure, which is not reflected in the sources, or in readership-search-queries, methinks. Consistency with other analogical topics, isn't as important as being consistent with sources, and with common keyword-patterns.

  In the case of the Italic tribes thing, it looked like there was no content to speak of, at the moment. (Maybe there should be? Again, I'm not an expert on that stuff.) However, in the case of the West Germanic tribes, there *was* significant content; the tribes, as a political topic, are found in WP:RS which talk about kingships and such. The article only had a few sentences of prose, true, but it also had a list of West Germanic tribes and sub-tribes. You redirected to Germanic Peoples, which for instance mentioned the Chatti in a quote by Pliny the Elder, and also in the navbox, but doesn't say the Chatti were a West Germanic tribe. There is also the List_of_Germanic_peoples article, linked at the bottom of the place you redirected to, which has the Chatti, but again doesn't give their geographic location. Of course, there is also the West Germanic language article... which, as the first few paragraphs of Germanic Peoples explains, might not be identical with the tribes.

  The point here, is that when you redirected West Germanic tribes, you effectively deleted information from mainspace. That's bad for the readership, right? Not to mention, making more work for editors, who end up having to recreate that content later. Frustrating. And because you didn't take the article to AfD, but simply overwrote the page with a redirect, the removal of content could easily have been missed; that somebody noticed it (Yngvadottir), was just luck. The topic seems to pass WP:N with flying colors, even from a brief bit of WP:GOOG, so it frustrates me that you treated the West Germanic tribes prose-and-integrated-list, in almost the exact same way you treated the Ancient Italic tribes (which was already just a redirect, that you tweaked slightly). Do you understand where I'm coming from here?

  Anyhoo, I hope this better explains what I mean, as you asked. I understand your frustration at other people criticizing your editing; that is natural. For what it is worth, I think your mainspace-edit to Bibliotheca historica was spot on, and your policy-edit to Germanic-speaking Europe clear & lucid. You made some tiny spelling goofs in Herod_the_Great, but that's no prob, I do the same thing all the time (other editors in nearby paragraphs had more significant grammar-problems... I fixed it up a bit while I was there). Over at Helveconae, you deleted a significant portion of the article; I'd rather you have copied it to the article-talkpage, but hey, the content *was* speculative (it said as much right when Botteville inserted that stuff back in 2005). Maybe it can be sourced, maybe not; you are not WP:REQUIRED to find the sources, if you don't wish to. So I'm not frustrated at that Helveconae deletion, it seemed justified, even if I think it could be done a bit differently. Point being, you do good work, from what I can tell. Thanks for that, it's appreciated.

  But the redirect of West Germanic tribes, wiping the material in the process, seemed well across the line to me: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is policy. Quite frustrating to see good information deleted, even if it is still technically in the history (somewheres). If something is a BLP violation, or COPYVIO, or simply WP:NOT, then it needs to go, sure! But none of those were the issue at West Germanic tribes; there were plenty of sources easily available... spanning a century just counting the online sources, and a couple millenia counting offline sources. You even cited a source, to justify your deletion of the content, so it seemed clear that you weren't just deleting unthinkingly, or deleting by mistake. But just because one source says $foo, doesn't mean that you should violate WP:PRESERVE on that basis, right? I don't want to frustrate you, but I also don't want Yngvadottir tearing out their beard, either, if you know what I mean. Does what I'm saying make sense? Be bold, not reckless, as the old saying goes. My goal is not to frustrate you, but to constructively point out a place where I think you made a mistake, and suggest that you use AfD next time, rather than wiping. What if Fakirbakir had just overwritten Germanic-speaking Europe with a redirect, rather than taking it to AfD? Hope this helps, sorry about the small novel.   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Krakkos. You have new messages at Talk:List of ancient peoples of Anatolia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

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.

List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sinope, Anaximenes, Turks, Milesian and Ararat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern Greek in articles about Ancient Greece

Hello, Krakkos. Please note that this edit was against policy. Having the Modern Greek term for an Ancient Greek topic is against WP:NOTDICT. Articles about Ancient Greece should not contain translations of terms to modern languages; only the Ancient Greek etymologies of the English word for the topic. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)