User talk:Urselius

Hello, Urselius! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A-S brooches etc

Hi, I was interested by your point that "Not that long ago, brooch and ceramic typology was considered proof positive of ethnic distinctness and the settlements in Britain were linked to specific Continental geographical origins on this basis alone. Ancient DNA has definitively shown that some of the people buried with early Anglo-Saxon grave goods were of local British origins, making brooch and ceramic typology redundant as an indicator of ethnicity." at the AS settlement talk. Do you have a good ref for that? I'd like to add re the brooches to the "metalwork" section of Anglo-Saxon art. From a generous preview of Martin, Toby F., The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England, 2015, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2015, ISBN 1843839938, 9781843839934, google books, he rejects simplistic older views, but seems by no means ready to completely let go of an "Anglian" identity being part of the broochs' meaning. Is this book well thought-of, do you know? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod:Hi, I haven't seen the Martin book, but I think brooch typology is still relevant to cultural identity and cultural contacts. I don't have any particular sources for brooch typology being invalidated by ancient DNA work, but I think Schiffels, S. et al. (2016) makes the general point that material culture (grave goods) and genetics are unrelated in early Anglo-Saxon burials. I made the point about brooches because it has always struck me that the claims made for 'different minor variations in brooch form being used to trace back populations in Britain to very specific Continental populations' seemed specious in the light of other evidence - even before ancient DNA technology. The adventus was not a tribal incursion like those of the Burgundians, Vandals etc., it was much more of a 'private enterprise' of separate warbands, which sometimes co-operated with each other. That each warband and their associated peasants in areas that were later Anglian came originally from Angeln I think highly unlikely. Urselius (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lampião

I noticed you reverted my entire edit on Lampião with the edit summary: Written in British English as per talk page. While I appreciate you for improving the page, the only thing I noticed I did wrong was changing neighbours to neighbors. Not sure if you noticed that I also corrected the incorrect parameter |Cause of death= used on the infobox (as it's showing in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters), removed overlinks on countries, and fixed the dashes. IAre those part of the "British English" as well? Cause if not I would like to restore those correct edits, please? Thanks. - SUBWAY 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Subwaymuncher: Of course. I tend to react by reversion when I see that an editor has not checked the talk page for information on the article. Perhaps a harsh measure. Urselius (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Myriokephalon

Merhaba, resimle alakalı sizle konuşmak istiyorum. Wikipedi'de yeniyim. Konuyla alakalı resmin tam olarak lisansına ulaşabileceğimi sanmıyorum çünkü bu resim "İstanbul Askeri Müze" ve bazı farklı sergilerde gösterime sunulmuştur. Herhangi bir telif hakkına ulaşamıyoruz. Yardımcı olurmusunuz? Ulpionz (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I want to talk to you with the picture. I'm new to Wikipedi. I do not think I can reach the full license of the painting with the subject because this painting has been shown in the "Istanbul Military Museum" and some other exhibitions. We cannot access any copyrights. Could you help? Ulpionz (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I want to talk to you with the picture. I'm new to Wikipedi. I do not think I can reach the full license of the painting with the subject because this painting has been shown in the "Istanbul Military Museum" and some other exhibitions. We cannot access any copyrights. Could you help? Ulpionz (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulpionz:I am not the best person to ask. It depends on the age of the painting and copyright law in different jurisdictions, particularly the USA. If the painting is over 100 years old there would be little problem. Less than that, then there will probably be some copyright on the image. Being on public display, or in a publication, does not entitle use on Wikimedia. I would recommend asking for advice on Wikimedia itself, rather than Wikipedia, and look at the copyright disclaimers used on similar images on Wikimedia. Urselius (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Focus

Hi, I altered the spelling of focussed in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain as the article already had three instances of focused. I have checked online to see which is more common in the U.K. and it seems to be focused, which is listed first by Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries.

Wiktionary says: "The spellings focusses, focussing, focussed are more common in Commonwealth English than in American English, but in both varieties they are less common than the spellings focuses, focusing, focused", which suggests that focused is preferred in British English.

I still prefer focused, but as both are acceptable, could you amend either focus or focussed so the spelling is consistent? TSventon (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Dorylaeum (1147)

Hi, i think you dont understand what i saying. I say the given source states it was a decisive victory for the seljuks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Then say that that particular source says so. The use of the word decisive in a Wikipedia infobox is quite controversial and is only really used when there are no further major armed clashes in a war. 'Decisive' does not mean the same as 'a major victory' or a 'very one-sided battle', it means that it decided the outcome of a war. Doryleum stopped the German Crusaders from overrunning the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, or taking Konya, but that was not the major aim of the Crusaders, their major aim was to get to Syria to bolster the Crusader States after the loss of Edessa. Doryleum did not stop the Crusaders from getting to Syria, it was not decisive in the way this word is used in Wikipedia. You could say somewhere in the article, not in that part of the infobox that gives the result, that "Doryleum was decisive in preserving the Sultanate of Rum". That would be fine. Please sign all comments with four '~' symbols. Urselius (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A very small part of the Germans were able to reach Damascus, very few of the Damascus besiegers were German. This battle has already had quite an impact on the outcome. Also, can you change the Analysis of the fate of named participants suggest a casualty rate of 63% at most to See the Aftermath and estimation of crusader losses section. Because I have read about this battle from many sources, and they all say that the loss of the Germans is 18,000. This text looks sided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. If there were no doubts about the casualty figures then Phillips, in 'Phillips, J. (2008) The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom, Yale University Press', would not have gone to the trouble of trying to estimate casualties from contemporary records of named German Crusaders. Finding these records was not a trivial piece of historical research. Professional historians do not undertake such arduous work, if they do not have to. Nicolle does not mention any casualty figures at all. This is conclusive evidence that the figure you espouse is not considered to be accurate or definitive by a number of scholars who have written books specifically about the Second Crusade. Whatever your or my opinion is about this is totally irrelevant, because Wikipedia always has to reflect the available scholarship. If the scholarship is divided on any point, then both opinions have to be given equal weight in a Wkipedia article. This is non-negotiable. It is you who is trying to present a one-sided view, and it is I trying my hardest, against a storm of undeserved invective and lack of good faith, to reflect the balance of relevant scholarship. This can be taken to various forms of Wikipedia arbitration, if you wish. Urselius (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

First admission of lady Fellows to the Linnean Society of London

Thank you for this; I wasn't aware of the background (I assumed the b&w version was a from a sketch). Where can I read more? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:A description of the painting and the overpainting is in the Gage and Stearn history. I'm not entirely sure what pages, as my copy is in a box in the loft. The lady in the right foreground and her husband in the rear right background were painted out, some sort of society infighting and the settling of scores, I recall. Gage A.T. and Stearn W.T. (1988) A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London, Linnean Society of London. Urselius (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruption in Paeonians

Thanks for noticing this kind of manipulation. Unfortunately User:Iaof2017 avoids any kind of discussion. He has been recently blocked due to large scale edit warring, but this pattern of disruption has reached a new level (combination of no discussion-endless revert-warring ).Alexikoua (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua:I thought it might be part of a pattern of disruptive editing, it is often the case. Urselius (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE reversions

Good day, I have noticed that you undid two of my recent edits under MOS:TENSE. Could you please clarify what was wrong with my edits? As far as I can tell, the edits conform with the guideline, as, though historical, the helmets still meaningfully exist, either as historical artifacts or replicas.

203.164.32.167 (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@203.164.32.167:The text mentions them as 'combat helmets'or 'military helmets', which was their function, they are no longer used as combat helmets by any military force. Their use is most definitely in the past. Examples still exist, but as museum pieces, not as 'combat helmets'. As they were not created as museum exhibits, their modern existence must be subsidiary, tense-wise, to their past functional existence. Urselius (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I will be sure to take note of such wording in the future when making MOS:TENSE corrections to avoid such mistakes again.

203.164.32.167 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Stop edit warring. [1] half of the pictures says Ertugrul Ghazi, half others says Mimar Sinar. No idea what your reasoning is. "Better than nothing" is not a good reasoning. Definetely not a good way to build a proper encyclopedia. Beshogur (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. And please, instead of ignoring the regular "bold, revert, discuss" process, take part in the discussion at WT:MILHIST. Dragovit 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dragovit: You do not appear to recognise the difference between edit warring and restoring an article to its original state whilst an edit that has been challenged is being actively discussed; the aim of discussion is to arrive at a consensus between interested editors about the usefulness, or otherwise, of the edit or edits in question. Urselius (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem on Yamnaya culture (again Hunan201p)

Hello Urselius! I am writing you because you have already interacted with the user Hunan201p and his controversial and WP:POV based notorious edit style related to race and blonde hair at Proto-Indo-Europeans, regarding the genetic section, where he had an edit war with you, unti he got blocked for three months. Now he is doing the same on Yamnaya culture and threats other users with "banning" them. Could you please take a look and stop his agenda based edits. Thank you in advance for your help!213.162.73.204 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking also into account WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS as well as WP:Weight, the whole section should be removed, as it remains to controversial to make bold claims about millions of people. Also pinging user:Rsk6400 to comment.213.162.73.204 (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted for the moment, but the editor in question is persistent. He uses tentative or hedged statements in the literature and exaggerates them for his own agenda. However the Haak paper, in Nature, which started this whole genetics of the Yamnaya does state that they had a majority of dark eye alleles and had skin that was lighter than the majority of WHG, but darker than that of most modern Europeans. Urselius (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to the Roman and Byzantine emperors WikiProject

Hey Urselius,

Wanted to make you aware of the new Roman and Byzantine emperors WikiProject under development, as you've made some impressive edits to the area, which we are very grateful for. Thank you, regardless! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thanks for the 'heads up'. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21

Hi Urselius, I'd like to invite you to express your opinions on the deletion decision Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21, because I saw you comments on the administrator's Talk page for "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation". We are now appealing for deletion decision. Hope this time, the invitation is just in time. Minimumbias (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)