User talk:Skllagyook: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:43, 28 January 2020

Skllagyook, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Skllagyook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if you agree with my comments

here? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I think so; if the proposed edit does not have an academic source (or other Wikipedia-acceptable source), it should not be included. On the other hand, if the source (or sources) given by the commentator is/are acceptable ones according to Wikipedia's rules (at least one seemed to be academic, the Zahi Hawass et al. paper cited last), then perhaps the presence of E1b1a in a few (or two, or however many it was found in) ancient specimens could very be briefly mentioned (perhaps in section the DNA history of Egypt article discussing "Ancient DNA", in which haplogroups are mentioned/discussed). However, regarding the commenter's claim that E1b1a was much more common in ancient than modern Egypt, this does not seem to be supported/is not at all clear (as far as we know), since E1b1a seems to have been (so far) only found in two (or a few) of the Ancient Egyptian remains, possibly belonging to the same family — from what I can tell, it has only so far been found in Ramesses III and in a mummy known as "Unknown man E" — (thus E1b1a could have been rare in Ancient Egypt as well). And, according to the DNA history of Egypt article, E1b1a is also present at low rates in modern Egyptians (And according to the DNA history of Egypt article, and its sources, some other known Ancient Egyptian remains carried y haplogroups E1b1b and J, which are still common in modern Egyptians.). Skllagyook (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashkenazi Jews, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lebanese and Cypriot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Moxy 🍁 23:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Haplogroup D

Hi. I requested move on Talk:Haplogroup D-M174#Requested move, but which do you think is better, moving Haplogroup D-M174 to Haplogroup D-CTS3946 or creating a new Haplogroup D-CTS3946 article? Please tell me for reference.--ABCEdit (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure at present, but I will consider the question and I will reply to you soon (likely sometime later today in not very long) with my opinion. Skllagyook (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you 141.126.210.103 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ABCEdit: I'm fairly new to this kind of thing and not very familiar with the procedures (and rules and requirements) involved in creating and moving pages, but in my tentative opinion (for now) it seems that it might be better to create a new haplogroup D-CTS3946 (basal D) page and to keep the D-M174 (D1) page that exists (perhaps with some slight modifications). Since the D-M174 page already exists with a lot of information about D-M174 (specific to D-M174), it might be best to keep it as a D-M174 page. I imagine that the new D-CTS3946 page would be linked from/to both the DE page (in the infobox and elsewhere, mentioned as a descendent of DE), and from the D-M174 page (mentioned as the ancestor of D-M174), as is generally the case with haplogroup pages to show how they are connected/related to other related haplogroups (in other words, the D-CTS3946 page would be "in-between" the DE page and the D-M147 page, if I understand correctly). The new D-CTS3946 page would also include some of the new information on D2 (and D-CTS3946) derived from the new research (from Haber et al. and the Roberta Estes source) that is currently on the D-M174 page. It also might be a good idea to make a page on the newly-discovered haplogroup D0 (D2), (which is, as you know, a descendant of D-CTS3946 and a sibling of D-M174). The D0/D2 page (if it is created) can also include the new research (from the Haber et al. study and the Roberta Estes source). But this opinion is somewhat tentative and I will do some more research into the rules and processes of creating and moving Wikipedia pages (and perhaps other relevant issues), and get back to you if I find some important relevant information and/or if my opinion changes on the matter. Skllagyook (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I'm neutral about moving Haplogroup D-M174 to Haplogroup D-CTS3946 or not, so I will work in the direction to create Haplogroup D-CTS3946.--ABCEdit (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

subspecies of Homo sapains

Could you please put your thoughts (opposition) in related request: Talk:Denisovan#'Homo_sapiens_denisova'_subspecies_of_Homo_sapiens 99.90.196.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date ranges

Hello Skllagyook. Thanks for your work on paleo articles. But regarding this and this edit, please bear in mind that date ranges are conventionally given as oldest to youngest. So with BCE, BP or ya dates, the larger number goes first (e.g. 70–50 kya not 50–70 kya). Thanks. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Are you sure that is always the case? I wasn't sure whether there was a particular convention, as I had seen it both ways in academic papers. In the first paper linked below, for instance, the smaller numbers seem to be placed first (the abstract for example says: "50,000–100,000 years ago", "50,300–81,000 years ago", and "50,300–59,400 years ago") https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421, and in this second paper (at least in some places) the smaller numbers of BC date ranges seem to go first as well (such as in the map in "Fig 5": e.g. "60-70 ka", "30-40 ka", "8-10 ka", etc.): :https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/3/915/1005941. However, this other paper does use the order you describe (oldest to youngest): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6401177/ Skllagyook (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you'll find the vast majority of papers do earliest to latest. The second one you link actually mixes the two formats (copy editors not paying attention maybe!) In any case it's the norm on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in the future I will stick to the earliest to latest format then. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Joe (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if you do not understand and you would want

ask question. If i get time i would explain. You can try now. Welcome 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this. Agricolae (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Skllagyook! You created a thread called How to use a certain template from the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kerma culture

Dear Skllagyook, I have seen your ongoing great edits on improving the article about Kerma culture and so I would like to point out to you a picture just uploaded on wikicommons by a photographer who went to Sudan recently, here of a pristine early Kerma culture tomb on display in the National Museum of Sudan. The tomb, excavated in Kerma, is dated to c. 2500-2400 BC and was originally classified by Reisner in 1916 as belonging to the Nubian C-group but it seems he was mistaken. I hope you will find this picture useful to illustrate funerary practises of the Kerma culture. I was personally struck by the horns surrouding it, an hallmark of late predynastic to early dynastic tombs in Egypt. Note, the same photographer promised to soon upload a photo of a scale model of the city of Kerma c. 2000 BC on display in the Museum of Sudan.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical references tend to be unreliable

hi Skllagyook. Regarding your recent edits to John Wayne: Such references tend to be unreliable, and there's general consensus not to use them. You'll note multiple such websites are listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and discussions specifically about famouskin.com and ethnicelebs.com are archived at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: I was not aware of that (although, only two of the genealogical sources you removed were added by me). Thank you for letting me know, and noted. Skllagyook (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"(including those of populations from Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas)"

I changed this to Eurasians, Polynesians, and Native Americans because the vast majority of people recognize those terms more so than Oceania, and because we're not trying to list every non-Subsaharan African ethnicity. It looked like you were just trying to give arbitrary examples of various non-Subsaharan Africans around the world (like why didn't you mention North Africans?), but the lead is already massive, and we need to cut unnecessary verbiage, so we really shouldn't even be trying to list x,y,z non-Subsaharan African population User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I gave examples (a short list) of the three major inhabited non-African regions (Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas) rather than an arbitrary list of regions or ethnicities. One reason for adding the list was to illustrate that Neanderthal admixture is found in all non-African (or non-sub-Saharan African) populations, since there seems (as I wrote in an edit note) to be a not uncommon misconception that it is restricted to populations of European and Asian origin. To replace Oceania (a region that also includes Papua, and Australia as well as various island groups, and a diversity of human groups as well) with Polynesia (one very small, and not necessarily representative, part of Oceania/not at all equivalent to "Oceania") does not seem to me to be an improvement, and it does much less to counter the misconception that Neanderthal admixture is restricted to a small range of non-sub-Saharan populations (but seems possibly consistent with said misconception). I agree would be preferable to use a more widely recognized term if an equivalent one were available, but (I think you would likely agree that) it is best avoided to take up more space by listing the regions of Oceania (Australia, Papua, etc). Hopefully the fact that "Oceania" is linked will aid in recognition/understanding. Skllagyook (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying we shouldn't even explain non-Subsaharan African. If you're worried people won't know it means everyone not from Subsaharan Africa, we can wikilink it, but we don't need to list all the continents User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I'm not sure I understand. Is there a page for "non-sub-Saharan African" that can be wikilinked to? There does not seem to be one. It does not seem to me to be a significant problem to briefly list three major regions in the lede, nor does it take up very much space, and it seems to me a helpful detail. I prefer to keep it (I'm not sure I fully understand the objection, and I feel that the advantage outweighs the rather small amount it adds to the lede — I can try to make its wording more concise if that helps/if you prefer). Skllagyook (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "non-Subsaharan African" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: That does not seem like it would help very much in the respect I am referring to. It is generally understood (more or less) what sub-Saharan African means. My suggestion is that which populations (in a general broad continental sense) have Neanderthal admixture may need or benefit from a little extra detail or emphasis (rather than only mentioning the populations or region(s) that do/does not have it). Skllagyook (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will achieve the same effect with "non-Subsaharan African" and "including those of populations from Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas)" if it is already generally understood what Subsaharan African means. We don't need to call out specific races or anything. The only thing you could achieve by listing specific ethnicities is accidentally implying exclusion of certain other ethnicities (like you've excluded North Africans for starters) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I see your point about not wanting to seem to be excluding certain groups (that would give a misleading impression). Perhaps alternately, North Africans could be added to the list ("Eurasia, Oceania, North Africa, and the Americas"). Or instead could there perhaps be a better place to put the list than the lede? I can try to find one and later propose it here or in the article's Talk page) Skllagyook (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is it's entirely unnecessary to list various regions and continents, and the article is already enormous so we need to cut down verbiage where we can User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cushitic People Dispute

I had been about to close the Cushitic people dispute, because erasing the notice of the dispute resolution is a rude way of declining to participate in dispute resolution, and dispute resolution is voluntary. However, the other editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. This means that you may edit reasonably and boldly. It is possible that the other editor will create more sockpuppets. If so, please report them at sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Ok. Thank you for the message/notification. Skllagyook (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take out my addition to the Race and Intelligence Article?

Hi Skllagyook,

Why did you take out my addition to the Race and Intelligence introduction? Tesint (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesint: I removed it because the uncertainty regarding environmental vs genetic influences was/is already summed up above. Also, it (such a decisive statement as you had added) was not really accurate/supported, since some experts have argued that the differences are likely entirely environmental (e.g. Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer, etc.) - while some others have argued otherwise (It's not known, as summarized above in the paragraph); thus your addition was somewhat non-neutral/POV (see: WP:NPOV and WP:POV) and unsupported by both the article (which the lede is supposed to summarize) and by sources (see: WP:OR/WP:NOR). I would agree with the comment of the editor Johnuniq who responded to you in the Talk page [[1]] Skllagyook (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European homeland

Some counting:

diff revert #1 by you
diff revert #1 by MojtabaShahmiri
diff revert #2 by MS
diff revert #2 by you
diff revert #3 by you
diff revert #3 by MS
diff revert #4 by you

So, technically you broke WP:3RR; take care. But, let's clear that MS is engaging in WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, in concreto pushing his WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I think (or thought) the first edit/removal by me involved different material than the later ones (or may have involved the later material in addition to other material). If I did break the 3 revert rule (which looking over the diffs, it now seems that I likely did - I must have not paid adequate attention and lost track, and I may not have fully/adequately understood the 3-revert rule, which I will now again review). Is there now a risk of my being blocked or otherwise sanctioned in this instance? I should have been more careful and discussed/encourage discussion on the Talk page instead. I will do my best to avoid breaking this rule in the future. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think you were totally right in correcting MS's edits. In case there may a report, I'll plead for your innocence! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: That is much appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peopling of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujarati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your efforts to improve articles on IE. The project needs more editors like you.

Puduḫepa 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puduḫepa: Thank you! Skllagyook (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-editing of talk page posts

It is a bit of a problem. For one thing, if it's a user talk page they keep getting notifications. WP:REDACT tells you what to do if no one has replied to a talk page post, but as I said, there's still the notification thing and it can be a bit annoying. Dalhoa doesn't seem to have edited recently I see. I posted a warning on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I see. that would be annoying. I was not aware that a new notification was sent every time an edit was made to a comment on a user page. I will try to avoid that (frequent micro-editing) in the future. Regarding the Homo sapiens and Human pages, could I revert (or revise) the problematic edits made by Dalhoa, and, if they revert me again and refuse to discuss, would the thing to do then be to open another ANI case? Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how to edit, but if you get reverted, let me know. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Understood. Thank you for the help and responses. Skllagyook (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A-Group language

Hi, The A-Group predates kerma, can you please provide a source where we can check your claim that says recent linguistic research indicates they spoke Nilo-Saharan most of the sources you added are either inaccessible or foreign. Thank you. Dalhoa (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: The Rilly and Cooper sources should not be inaccessible. The complete versions should be linked, But here is link to an earlier discussion I had in the Kerma culture Talk page citing Cooper and Rilly (also with links). Rilly posits that the Kerma culture spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (which he believes was ancestral to the later Meroitic language of Nubia), and also Cooper posits that the Kerma peoples spoke a Nilo-Sahaharan language (with the more Northern C-Group culture likely speaking a Cushitic language). Also, I'm not sure what the A-Group culture predating Kerma has to do with it (as far as I know, the sources do not mention a likely language affinity for the A-group, and if they did, it would not be relevant to that of Kerma or the C-Group unless explicitly said to be by the author(s). I will now go through the relevant refs on the Cushitic peoples page and make sure they link to the full sources so they can be read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#Sources_and_language_affinity_of_Kerma.

And another section where I cited Rilly and Cooper (the section was begun by an other user, Yacoob316, who didi nit sign their comments (the comments responding to them with my signature are, of course, mine).:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#both_cushitic_and_nilotic_languages_were_spoken_in_kerma_according_to_julian_riley

Skllagyook (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon checking, two of the refs no longer had accessible full versions linked, that had had them before (someone may have edited them resulting in their removal), so I added links to full versions of the sources the to Cooper 2017, Rilly 2010, and Rilly 2008 refs. Skllagyook (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: I see that the source you added (a piece by Rilly) does briefly speculate about the linguistic affinity of the A-Group culture (the A-Group culture, not Kerma), but it's conclusion seems to be that the affinity of the culture's language is uncertain, and suggests that it could have been either Nilo-Saharan (which he suggests Kerma was in the other sources) or Afro-Asiatic (including Cushitic). But he does not believe it belonged to the same branch of the Nilo-Saharan family (North Eastern Sudanic) to which he believes the language of the Kerma people and the Meroitic language belonged. On page 135, Rilly says:

"The A-Group population...predates the Wadi Howar diasopora, so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic." (he also then mentions the possibility that it could have belonged to another, perhaps unknown, branch of the Afro-Asiatic family). Here below (see page 134):

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mXWcDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=C-Group&f=false (alternate link to the same source - the page menu tab is at the top left of page, and the book's pages can be turned with the arrows near the top right: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Ancient_Nubia/mXWcDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Handbook+of+Ancient+Nubia&printsec=frontcover)

Anyway, whether or not the A-Group culture spoke a Cushitic language is not necessarily especially relevant to whether the Kerma culture spoke one, especially since the A-Group existed mainly in northern (Lower) Nubia, while the Kerma culture was based in southern (Upper Nubia). Also, migrations from other areas may change linguistic affinities in a place.

The above is the same source that you added seemingly as a source in support of the hypothesis that the Kerma culture spoke a Cushitic language, but the source does not seem to make that claim (certainly Rilly does not, nor do the other pages of the source you cited the ref). On page 136 (at the above link), Rilly states that Behaus-Gerst's theory of a Cushitic substratum in the Nubian language (which Bechaus-Gerst though to be the remnant of a Cushitic Kerma language) has been refuted (by Rilly/himself), and Rilly makes that case in other sources as well. Skllagyook (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on page 136 (page 136 at this link: [[2]]), Rilly speculates the the C-Group language might also have been Nilo-Saharan (The substratum present in Old Nubian/Nobiin...clearly belongs to another North East Sudanic language...It could have been the language of the C-Group..."), but does not come to any strong conclusions regarding this. This would differ somewhat from the position of Cooper, who agrees with Rilly that the language of the Kerma civilization was Nilo-Saharan, but believes that (unlike the Kerma culture) the C-Group culture likely spoke a Cushitic language. However Rilly (on pages 132 and 133 of the same source) does argue (like Cooper also did) that the Medjay and Blemmyes cultures (also of Northern Nubia) spoke Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Skllagyook (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of not being collegial, so I politely ask in the spirit of collegiality that you add back the source you removed about the A-Group speaking Cushitic, the wiki is about the Cushitic people, can you also add the source to the A-Group wiki, now that you have a source that says they spoke Cushitic. Thank you. Dalhoa (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: The source says the A-Group might have spoken Cushitic (or Nilo-Saharan except for the North Eastern Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan, or possibly a branch of Afro-Asiatic besides Cushitic - see Rilly's quote above). The source presents all these as possibilities. I removed the source because you had inaccurately added it as supporting the hypothesis that the Kerma culture spoke Cushitic. But I can certainly add it back, and will present it as suggesting that the A-Group culture might have spoken Cushitic (among other possibilities). Skllagyook (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please no pov, the source I added clearly states A-Group spoke cushitic and their remnants too, you can directly quote like I do, if you want to quote your Rilly you can do so but please no pov and synthesis to mix the two. Dalhoa (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: I am not sure what POV or synthesis you mean. Rilly is the source you added (His piece on languages was included among others in Dietrich's book which you cited), and it , as mentioned above, presents Cushitic as one possibility for the A-Group language. I recently added it to the page with text summarizing his position. I also quoted him above. Here again in full:

"The A-Group population was settled along the Nile between the north iff Aswan ands the Second Cataract from approximately 3700 until 2800 BC. It predates the Wadi Howar diasopora, so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic. It could even be a scion of an extinct Afro-Asiatic family of which Egyptian is the only known member." (page 134. [[3]])

There is no POV or synthesis in my addition (which cites Rilly). It is simply based on Rilly's statement (above) regarding the A-Group language.

What source clearly states that the A-Group culture spoke a Cushitic language (without other possibilities as Rilly gave)? can you link it here (with page numbers if applicable)? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again please this is the stonewalling I talked about I am trying work with you here, this source clearly states A-Group spoke Cushitic confirmed by EL sayed and Chen, please cite your Rilly separately with your own source and let people verify.Dalhoa (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: What stonewalling? Please stop assuming my motivations. I just asked you to cite the source that states that clearly? I had no problem citing my sources (as I have here and elsewhere). Can you cite Sayed and Chen where they state that? what are the sources? (What works is it in and where is it stated?). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source states .... it is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family and then they conclude by stating they spoke Cushitic. You seem 100% certains about the other languages you added to the wiki even though they are uncertain but for this group you state unknown when the source doesn't even use that word. Does that seem balanced to you?Dalhoa (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: The source indeed says North Eastern Sudanic is unlikely (which I added). But it does not conclude that the language was Cushitic. It does not conclude very much at all. It says: "the range of possibilities remains wide" and then goes on to give the possibilities, which include Cushitic, a branch of Eastern Sudanic that is not the Northern East Sudanic branch (of Eastern Sudanic), other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan, or another branch of Afro-Asiatic. It does not conclude in favor of one (it only says that it is unlikely to be of the Northern East Sudanic branch of Eastern Sudanic, but could belong to another branch of Eastern Sudanic). Northern East Sudanic is a branch of Eastern Sudanic, which is in turn a branch of Eastern Nilo-Saharan. The quote (again) says:

"...so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic. It could even be a scion of an extinct Afro-Asiatic family of which Egyptian is the only known member." Skllagyook (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: I just noticed you edited the page according to your above (inaccurate) interpretation without reading or responding to my most recent reply to you (seeming to have ignored it). Please do not ignore my responses and continue to edit war (while refusing to discuss). You have done this before to me and I have seen you do it to other users. If you do it again you will be reported. Again please read the response. I quoted Rilly again. What he says is very clear, and it is not what you are claiming. Skllagyook (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The other languages I added (as you say) are presented as the most likely by the respective authors that propose them. This is different because Rilly clearly does not favor one possibility for the A-group language (except in saying that it is not likely of the Northern Eastern branch of the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan family). Skllagyook (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyllagyook stop with the threat I am trying to work with you here ok, where does it say in my source that the language is unknown?Dalhoa (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to be doing that, given the meritless accusations you have made, and your seeming insistence on editing the page without engaging with my replies. Rilly says that "the range of possibilities remains wide", and gives a list of possibilities from more than one language family. This clearly means that he considers the affinity of the A-Group language unknown (there are several disparate possibilities, none of which he seems to favor). Describing it as "unknown" is a perfectly accurate characterization, at least of Rilly's opinion (I could add something to make not clear that it is "unknown" according to some research, but there does not seem to be other research with another opinion, i.e. a hypothesis more clearly suggesting one affinity over others, so this would seem pointless unless a different opinion on the A-Group language is cited). If there is such a source/sources (with a more specific opinion than Rilly's; i.e. suggesting a specific linguistic affiliation for the A-Group) I would/will of course addd it. Skllagyook (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why I came here and asked that you add the A-Group instead of me doing?Dalhoa (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: First you asked me about the Kerma sources, so I provided links and explanations. Regarding the A-Group, what you want to add is not supported by the sources (that have been presented). If there is another source/sources that do/does support it, then present it. I asked you to do that and you have not done so. If content is not clearly and explicitly supported by a source, it cannot be included on the page. I don't see what the problem is with that. Skllagyook (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skllagyook cut the bs please you do not have ownership of the wiki, I am going to tell you why I came here, I came here because I wanted to see what you would write after I saw you edit at the A-Group wiki and I am not disappointed lets put it that.Dalhoa (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean, but it is clearly very hostile and accusatory. I do not claim to have ownership of any wiki, but there are rules here, and content must be sourced (and accurately reflect the sources). You are treating me with hostility and as though I am unreasonable for upholding that very basic Wikipedia policy, while refusing to answer by simple questions with straight answers. I have explained my reasoning here (and elsewhere) and your aspersions are unjustified. You have been warned about this kind of conduct before. This clearly requires outside intervention. You seem unwilling to be reasonable. Skllagyook (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skllagyook chill with the threats I am trying to be collegial here, I know you edit a lot but you need to stop the pov and synthesis, this little experiment told me you are still doing it. Finale note, you need to add your Rilly source to support that statement.Dalhoa (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: You are not being collegial in the least, not remotely. You are making repeated accusations and baselessly accusing me of POV and sythesis (and "bs" and "stonewalling", among other things). When you have not demonstrated any POV or synthesis on my part, and I have explained more than once why I have done neither. You are being extremely hostile and belligerent for no perceptible reason. Ignoring my explanations and continuously repeating the same old accusations and personal attacks is not nice (to say the least) and it is far from collegial. The Rilly source is already cited on the page and I have linked and quoted it here repeatedly. Skllagyook (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skllagyook, please add your Rilly source to the statement to avoid the pov or synthesis because my source does not say what you are saying, this is very important and it allows the Encyclopedia users to verify any claims.Dalhoa (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalhoa: What source do you have that says simething about the A-Group language that is different from Rilly. I have asked you this repeatedly and you have refused to answer or produce it (still ignoring me). What is this source of yours you keep claiming to have (link? quote? page number? title? something?). You cannot just make claims without a source. I have already cited Rilly repeatedly in this discussion (and on the page). The quotes and and link from him areabove. Again, please do not ignore my responses. I have explained this already. Please stop this and actually listen. Skllagyook (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skllagyook: I was being a bit of a talk page stalker thinking there’s no way Dalhoa gets along with other editors with his attitude, and boy, was I right or what? This conversation is such a frustrating read and if I may drop my two cents here I think you should spare yourself the carpal tunnel because this is the opposite of productive.

@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 ::::::::::::::: Skllagyook, please add your Rilly source to the statement to avoid the pov or synthesis because my source does not say what you are saying, this is very important and it allows the Encyclopedia users to verify any claims.[[User:Dalhoa|Dalhoa]] ([[User talk:Dalhoa|talk]]) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::::{{ping|User:Dalhoa}} What source do you have that says simething about the A-Group language that is different from Rilly. I have asked you this repeatedly and you have refused to answer or produce it (still ignoring me). What is this source of yours you keep claiming to have (link? quote? page number? title? something?). You cannot just make claims without a source. I have already cited Rilly repeatedly in this discussion (and on the page). The quotes and and link from him areabove. Again, please do not ignore my responses. I have explained this already. Please stop this and actually listen. [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook#top|talk]]) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::{{ping|User:Skllagyook}} I was being a bit of a [[WP:Talk page stalker|talk page stalker]] thinking there’s no way Dalhoa gets along with other editors with his attitude, and boy, was I right or what? This conversation is such a frustrating read and if I may drop my two cents here I think you should spare yourself the carpal tunnel because this is the opposite of productive.