User talk:Andrew Lancaster

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Lancaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --{{IncMan|talk}} 08:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia.

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.Jamesdean3295

Maternal origins of European Hunter Gatherers

This may be of some value in these articles....Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers (Found in Science Express)

Nonetheless, it is intriguing to note that 82% of our 22 hunter-gatherer individuals carried clade U [U5-14/22, U4-2/22 and U?-2/22]. ...... Europeans today have moderate frequencies of U5 types, ranging from about 1-5% along the Mediterranean coastline to 5-7% in most core European areas, and rising to 10-20% in northeastern European Uralic-speakers. . .

Kant, nous, intellect

Hi Andrew, I'm not a Kant expert, in spite of my limited knowledge of his thoughts on reason. And I don't really have time to get into an in-depth discussion of intellect vs. mind vs. nous vs. reason. However, as I understand it, for the Greeks, nous was the highest possible metaphysical ideal or form, because it was pure form, and true knowledge for the Greeks was the knowledge that revealed the form that was represented in things. John Dewey wrote a great dictionary entry about nous in 1901:

Nous [Gr. νοῦς, reason, thought]: Ger. Nus (K.G.); Fr. intelligence; Ital. nous. Reason, thought, considered not as subjective, nor as a mere psychic entity, but as having an objective, especially a teleological, significance.

We owe the term, as a technical one, to Anaxagoras. He felt the need of a special principle to account for the order of the universe and so, besides the infinity of simple qualities, assumed a distinct principle, which, however, was still regarded as material, being only lighter and finer than the others. To it, however, greater activity was ascribed, and it acted according to ends, not merely according to mechanical impact, thus giving movement, unity, and system to what had previously been a disordered jumble of inert elements. […] Plato generalized the nous of Anaxagoras, proclaiming the necessity of a rational (teleological) explanation of all natural processes, and making nous also a thoroughly immaterial principle. As the principle which lays down ends, nous is also the Supreme Good, the source of all other ends and aims; as such it is the supreme principle of all the ideas. It thus gets an ethical and logical connotation as well as a cosmological.

On the other hand, nous gets a psychological significance as the highest form of mental insight, the immediate and absolutely assured knowledge of rational things. (Knowledge and the object of knowledge are thus essentially one.) … In man, however, the νοῦς assumes a dual form: the active (νοῦς ποιητικός), which is free and the source of all man's insight and virtue that links him to the divine (θεωρειν), and the passive (νοῦς παθητικός), which includes thoughts that are dependent upon perception, memory -- experience as mediated through any bodily organ. […] The distinction (of Kant, but particularly as used by Coleridge) of REASON from UNDERSTANDING (q.v.) may, however, be compared with it, but the modern distinction of the subjective from the objective inevitably gives reason a much more psychological sense than nous possessed with the ancients.[1]

The distinction between knowledge, or understanding, and reason in Kant therefore mirrors the distinctions between is and ought, or nature and freedom. Nikolas Kompridis similarly connects the knowledge/reason distinction to the discovery in Kant of practical reason's connection to possibility vs. experience:

The great innovation of Kant’s critical philosophy was to reconceive reason as spontaneously self-determining, or self-legislating, such that reason

frames for itself with perfect spontaneity an order of its own according to ideas to which it adapts the empirical conditions and according to which it declares actions to be necessary even though they have not taken place and, maybe, never will take place.

[…]

As distinct from the rule-governed activity of the understanding (whose rule-governed spontaneity is internally consistent with its concept), reason is a possibility-disclosing activity, proposing ends (‘‘ideas’’) that go beyond what is already given empirically or normatively. This much Kant already understood, if not fully appreciated, which is why he distinguished the possibility- disclosing activity of reason from the rule-governed acquisition and exercise of knowledge: ‘‘as pure self-activity [Selbsttätigkeit]’’ reason ‘‘is elevated even above the understanding . . . with respect to ideas, reason shows itself to be such a pure spontaneity and that it far transcends anything which sensibility can provide it.’

(Nikolas Kompridis, "The Idea of a New Beginning: A romantic source of normativity and freedom" in Philosophical Romanticism, p.34, 47)

References

Teleological argument

Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians".Tstrobaugh (talk)

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Germanic peoples 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. Fram (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

collecting background about Germanic peoples recent discussions

• 10:31, 11 December 2019 [2] User:Krakkos begins new topic on talk:Germanic Peoples "Article length"

• Krakkos suggests that to shorten the article the "Culture" section can be split out into another article.
• User:Johnbod suggested that it would be better to move the history section instead.
• User:Andrew Lancaster argued that further work in reducing duplication and the amount of poor material is the preferable way to shorten the article, which is only large for these reasons.
• User:Obenritter felt Andrew Lancaster was exaggerating but agreed the article needed work.
• Conclusion: no agreed plan, some possibilities of agreed aims, no discussion about a new Germani article. Discussion stopped 25 December.

• 26 December 2019 to 17 January 2020. Numerous discussions begun, and editing mainly by Andrew Lancaster, working on shortening but also reducing duplication. Ideas and principles continually updated on talk page.
• 10:51, 17 January 2020 Krakkos posts strange new "RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?"

• No one has ever disagreed that it is within the scope of the article. The result was a foregone conclusion.
• OTOH the background text implies that the RFC was really meant to be about making sure we have an article about modern Germanic speaking peoples.
• The RFC makes no mention of any idea that the article should be exclusively about Germanic speaking peoples. It was not an article topic change proposal or article move proposal.
• Much later. 11:29, 20 January 2020‎ Krakkos adds a new section under "Ethnonyms", which already includes Germani and Teutons, called "Germanic": "includes information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages, per unanimous consensus at Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?"

• 13:46, 17 January 2020‎ Krakkos removes 3,057 bytes‎ from Germanic Peoples [3] "Transferring most of the ethnonym section to Germani, while leaving a summary description" (For new article Germani, not yet made at this time, see below)

• 14:07, 17 January 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster bytes +3,358‎ "rolling back several edits which create a mirror article with obvious aims to change this article in opposition to REPEATEDLY confirmed consensus"
• 14:19, 17 January 2020‎ Krakkos bytes -3,555‎ Undid revision 936227819 by Andrew Lancaster "Rv duplication of content now located at Germani. See Talk:Germanic peoples#Article length"
• 14:36, 17 January 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster bytes +3,555‎ Undid revision "this needs talk first, obviously, as it is a major breaking up of the article in opposition to years of discussion; so use talk first"
• Subsequent edit war warning. Both editors stopped left the article without the massive deletion of material.

• 14:02, 17 January 2020 [4]. Krakkos re-creates the Germani article.

• Large pre-prepared text, based on a pre-existing article, Germanic peoples and clearly covering the same topic at that time.
• Links inserted imply that the existing article, Germanic peoples, is or will be an article about Germanic speaking peoples instead (linguistically defined).
• Several reverts of the material move (as it was described on Germanic people edsum - see above) led to an edit warring warning, and the situation of the material being in BOTH articles. (Still the case 20 Jan.)
• 16:29, 18 January 2020‎ User:Moxy Added Disputed tag to Germani article
• 17:21, 18 January 2020‎ User:Ymblanter Protected "Germani": Edit warring / content dispute: request at WP:RFPP ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC))

• 14:34, 17 January 2020‎ on Germanic Peoples Andrew Lancaster starts "Revisiting the article topic controversy"

• AL reminds Krakkos continuously about this being the real underlying topic causing circular discussions and that the section is prepared and discussion should begin. Krakkos never takes up this offer (as of 20 Jan).

• 10:57, 18 January 2020 on Germanic Peoples Andrew Lancaster starts [5] "Merge proposal. Germani to be merged back to here (new split off article by Krakkos)" In the ensuing discussions:

• Krakkos 22:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC) asked why Andrew Lancaster calls the new article a duplicate "You believe that this is the scope of this article (Germanic peoples) as well?". When Andrew Lancaster pointed out that Krakkos also describes it elsewhere this way since 2018 (which Andrew Lancaster finds to be an over simplification based only on looking at a few opening words), Krakkos changed position: "For thirteen consecutive years (2005 to 2019), this article was about peoples identified as speakers of Germanic languages. [...] When was it decided by the community to make this drastic change of scope?" [6] That question about justifying the present article's topic is then repeated over and over.
• 10:03, 20 January 2020 "Since you've repeatedly refused to provide evidence that your change of topic was backed by consensus, and failed to provide sources for this change [supposedly in 2018], it's safe to assume you have neither. That settles this discussion." Krakkos

Germanic peoples article - for discussion

@Krakkos:@Obenritter:@Florian Blaschke:@Austronesier:@Joshua Jonathan:@Ermenrich: This was something I started writing in a reply on the talk page of Obenritter. Perhaps worth posting here instead, in the hope it cuts to the real core of problems on the said article, and gets more useful discussion?

In reply to the objection that I have been "deletionist" on Germanic peoples:

• I disagree if you think I am trying to "delete" material about Germanic-speaking peoples, but I can see that is the impression Krakkos is perhaps trying to create, by constantly inserting duplicated materials into the wrong places (especially the first paragraph) where they have to be deleted. However there is nothing stopping editors from adding more information about Germanic-language speakers, including modern ones, as long as it respects the existing logical structure. Languages are currently first noted in the second paragraph, because something needs to come second. (If the article was Germanic-language based first, Roman era secondarily, this style of edit would have the same problem. Duplicating things constantly into the first paragraph, and multiple sections, is a question of bad editing.)
• I do agree that I am one of the editors resistant to reintroduction of lists of modern Germanic peoples "by descent", i.e. racially, NOT linguistically defined e.g. Afrikaners, but not Jamaicans or Ashkenazi Jews etc., such as in the lists the article once had. Krakkos has not mentioned them since this latest split attempt, but he keeps referring back to the split attempt last year where these were certainly the real demand.[7] The more I look at the situation and past discussions, the more I think that this is the real reason why these things are being done, and Krakkos is not wanting to explain any real rationale.

The racial idea is of course sourceable to old works (from Grimm up to the defeat of the Nazis). That historical way of talking can also be covered in this article and others as being something now rejected by scholars, and more typical of fringe groups. Instead, ancestral groupings are studied by population geneticists in quite new ways, with new terminology. The lists which are demanded would in contrast treat the old racial theories as current, when they are not. This is also reflected in the fact that Krakkos has never found good sourcing for modern Germanic peoples except in the linguistic sense. Lists of Germanic modern languages could be fitted into the article near the end without changing the topic. That has never been a problem. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC) @Carlstak:@Johnbod:

Discourse

It is a common strategy of trolls to feign ignorance below the level common sense, with the effect to disrupt an ongoing dialogue, to divert resources of interlocutors, and potentially to lead interlocutors who actually have agreed and managed to cool off into rekindling a heated debate because of the toxic climate created by the troll. So better ignore. What do you think? I can remember you already announced to do so when they still spammed as IP; I admit it is hard.... –Austronesier (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there. I can't really make head nor tail of what is going on in the Germanic people page, but just FYI, the classic example of poisoning the well is actually the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The point being that neither a yes nor a no answer is right if you have never beaten your wife, and to give either answer implicates you.

I think maybe this question under discussion is in fact a false dichotomy. If, as you say, it is neither one nor the other but both, or there is some third way that is not hinted at by the question, then it is a false dichotomy. I hope that is helpful in some way. If not - well, sorry :) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected article moves and redirections

Hi, user Krakkos redirected encyclopedic pages to a typical "potpourri page". Steppe EMBA and Steppe MLBA are genes of its own but were redirected to the potpourri page Western Steppe Herders. Last month he did some article moves, merges and splits without prediscussion or trivial reasons. It looks like he is creating his own racialist DNA world. --46.114.35.107 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the intentions of such things are, I suppose each such case of systematic moves needs to be explained by people with concerns, just like it should be explained by @Krakkos: more often. I should say that I am definitely not a fan of having lots of small articles about closely-related subjects, which might be a risk in some of these cases with archaeological cultures. When there are many small articles, this is exactly when it is hardest for the community to make sure they all give the best information and are un-biased. I suppose, on the other hand, your concern might be that the setting-up favours particular assumptions and maybe even WP:OR? But then the only way forward is to try to explain why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip

Hi,

As a native English please look on the article in the subject, and make a feedback to me regarding wracked vs. racked, who has right??(KIENGIR (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

I read your answer, but then, if you have to choose only between these two, which one you would? Wracked or racked?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your tireless work, often alone, and prudent decision making. In aggregate, your transformation of Germanic peoples into a balanced and enlightening page is truly inspiring. Keep up the good work! Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaius Carrinas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Magdolna Purgly

Hi,

native English feedback wanted...Her Serene Mistress or Her Serene Highness? (it's about Miklós Horthy's, wife, by Horthy article he is His Serene Highness). Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: in terms of what sounds normal in English, Highness sounds more correct. (Mistress is not really a title of nobility, which is what I presume these are. It is the female version of master, as in school master, master of a house, master craftsman, etc.) I also notice in Horthy's article there is a reference given specifically for the English translation of his title as Highness. However I can not check that reference. Also, I notice that the two words seem to literally mean something like "Emminent lady"? I also notice this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serene_Highness#Hungary which might help . In any case Mistress does not sound right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. You've been warned for edit warring at Goths, per the result of the AN3 complaint. The closure says;

From here on, if either of you makes any change at all on the Goths article without a prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. Both of you are free to make arguments on the Talk page. I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). If Krakkos's changes of the publication dates are indeed an example of poor behavior, as claimed by Andrew on Talk ('insistence on this silliness'), then Andrew should find it easy to get support from others in an RfC.

Be aware of the 'any changes at all' restriction, since that disallows even small technical edits. (The two of you frequenlty disagree about small technical edits). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions, photos of private mails, etc

@EdJohnston: you made me think about WP:ASPERSIONS, and I realized this is being cited to me for trying to defend myself from some, which no one seems to have questioned. So just for reference...

The decisive post on the Administrator's Noticeboard by Krakkos:
[8] 14:31, 28 February 2020	Comments by Andrew Lancaster
EdJohnston> Now that the 24 hour limit on 3RR at Goths has expired, Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting.	Which reverting? (or similar) No diff was given, and I believe there was none. I think this is not referring to anything.
He does not appear to be abiding with Jens Lallensack's compromise solution.	Again misleading. This refers to the proposal by the GA reviewer that I let the main editor edit and comment on the talk page, not any kind of admin sanction or formal agreement. I had commented in more detail explaining why the whole GA review was called wrongly, but I also did in fact try to mainly just add remarks to the talk page. The sentence implies lots of things which just did not happen.
He is removing,[9] against consensus,[10] a citation from Professor Joshua J. Mark, which was added by me.[11]	One edit. Not a controversial edit, nor a revert. This source is some kind of online educational magazine, being used mainly to say that Peter Heather (a real source) is right and Walter Goffart is wrong - ie. crudely worded things. Though it should be removed entirely from the article, these specific removals were for now only from places where stronger sources were already fully supporting our sentences. There had been a lot of talk page discussion about this source, and also about the problem of Krakkos adding up to 14 sources per sentence.
Why is he continuing with this behavior one might ask?	When did you stop beating your wife? Which behavior? Above there is a link to one edit.
Because it works. At Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster flagrantly violated 3RR, and got away with a warning.[12]	Unfortunately yes, this happened once by accident. As mentioned there: Hmmm. Just looked in detail and I see Krakkos is counting some earlier edits as reverts. I had not even noticed that because earlier in the day I was working on shortening the article as called for by Krakkos [155]. Some of the material I removed, among many edits, was new HOWEVER, Krakkos should also report what happened a few days later when a new attempt to claim edit warring was quickly rejected: [13]
After continuing the edit war, he simply received another warning,[14] and the article was protected for two weeks.[15]	No, both of us were told we were teetering on the edge
As soon as that protection expired, he escalated the edit warring even further.[16] I refrained from edit warring and tried to resolve the situation at the talk page,[17] and my concerns were shared by several other editors.[18][19][20] Andrew Lancaster meanwhile flooded the talk with dozens of long sections, thereby creating confusion and discouraging other editors from participating in the discussion.[21][22] My concerns were ignored and the article was completely rewritten to its present poor state.[23][24] The lesson learned from the Germanic peoples dispute is clear and simple: Edit warring, stonewalling and gaslighting works.	I believe any normal person who examines the record will find this to be an incredibly twisted version of events. Furthermore, as mentioned above, during this period where Krakkos claims to have tried to "resolve the situation" (which is laughable: just see the title of the talk page section he proudly cites) is the period where Krakkos made a false edit warring claim.
Andrew Lancaster is applying this lesson flawlessly at Goths. As soon as the GA-review on Goths started,[25] he began complaining about the quality of the article,[26] and made fundamental rewrites of key parts of the article.[27] He had never edited the article before becoming aware that i had nominated it for GA.[28] This is obviously WP:HOUNDING. In the last few days, he has started more than a dozen new sections at Talk:Goths, posting long walls of text containing the same arguments and attacks over and over again.[29]	This story, as a story, actually does not sound very similar to what I supposedly did on Germanic peoples. This new case sounds more like a classical article ownership claim?
He has yet again violated 3RR.[30]	Did I? Actually this is the first time I think anyone has said I violated 3R? I thought the "edit warring" accusation was being made on some kind of subjective "everyone knows it when they see it" basis, and not revert counting. I certainly don't believe I was edit warring, or violating 3R. I also asked several times for someone to look at those diffs and confirm if they can really be called edit warring. It is very frustrating that Krakkos can post this ASPERSION, and not have the claims examined.
Because of his habit of completely rewriting quality articles, and apparent immunity from sanctions, many productive members of the community are afraid of him. His editing style has already successfully driven away a number of long-time productive contributors.[31][32][33][34] As long Wikipedia continues to reward his edit warring (as happened at Germanic peoples), he will grow even bolder, and additional productive editors will be driven away. Something needs to be done about this, but adding a protection template (as happened at Germanic peoples), will only give him more encouragement and make the situation even worse.	WP:Aspersions? BTW, I am surprised no admin remarked about the two png files that are posted.

Concern about your language at User talk:Krakkos

Hello Andrew. In my opinion your recent post on User talk:Krakkos is a personal attack. I'd like you to undo that post and, if necessary, post a revised one which contains no attacks on his character. What you wrote may be considered blockable by at least some administrators. Phrases that cause trouble include:

• "shameless dishonesty"
• "the history of how you lie and screw others"
• "trying to disrupt and make things less clear"
• "you seem unable to work honestly and with others"
• "If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it"

–EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)