User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The above notice is to avoid confusion, help you navigate the arbitration processes and provide you a direct link to the case request. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: thanks. Will do what I can ASAP to help let people start getting a feel for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Andrew Lancaster. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The above is because your statement currently stands at around 1,000 words. If you could trim it soon, it would be appreciated. All best, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: will do. Not experienced at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, sure. If you have questions, just ping me and I can answer them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: so I have made the post shorter, and hopefully that is better. What is the protocol now on that text? Is it something I can keep tweaking for a while, or should it now be left untouched? Is there a sort of "last edits" deadline idea anywhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, you can continue to make changes to your statement up until the case is accepted or declined. The case is accepted or declined when the case request is removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. For the sake of continuity, its probably best not to significantly rewrite your statement after other users have referred to it, but there is no rule against it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: the "More aspersions" section below on this talk page is an analysis of the opening post of Krakkos, who started this IBAN proposal against me. Obviously it can't fit on the case page, but would it be normal to link to something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I've seen this question, but need to deal with off wiki stuff for a bit. I'll answer it soon. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

From memory I have not seen linking to other pages which are continuation of a statement. The guide to arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Case request statements, does not say whether linking to other pages to continue the statement is allowable. I have asked other clerks about this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: to be clear, no I am not talking about extra argument text. I have now already placed links to a couple of summaries and collections of diffs, which illustrate specific points. These can be looked at optionally I suppose and I am thinking this is no problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, sure. No worries then. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This may be useful for you:

Per an email confirmation from an arbitrator, you can write anything you would like about the case in your userspace, sandbox etc. and then link it in your statement, however, arbitrators will generally not consider it. This is because, if they did look at linked pages, a person submitting a statement could make their statement much larger than the maximum statement length (i.e. making the rule of having a maximum statement size pointless) and put those who don't use this extension trick at a disadvantage. Having the maximum statement size ensures that evidence and facts are presented concisely, so that arbitrators can deal with the case request in a more timely manner.

Therefore, if you do include links to the below section the arbitrators probably won't look at it. If you want to include it you can request an extension from the arbitration committee (instructions are detailed above), or add examples from the list below into your statement without going over the 500 word limit. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: sounds about like I thought. So I think my previous comment covers it. Any links are just for anyone who wants a handy summary, and also to play safe and make sure I don't look like I am making lazy accusations etc. No one needs to follow them. Thanks for your help. BTW, I take it that now first comments are coming in there is no expectation of us replying those, or do people often reply to those in those phase?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I quote from WP:ARBPOL: Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. This doesn't mean that you should reply to every statement, but if an editor brings something up about you in a statement, a reply will allow you to present your side.

The replies you make contribute to your statement size (although you can request extension as always), because you can only reply to editors on the case request in your section. If you want to reply to another editor, you can follow the advice in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Responding to requests. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: I tried to add a reply using the method as I understood the linked-to instructions. Probably I took them too literally, but I've left it like that. Can I say "feel free to fix it"? Or, if you want me to fix it, just please confirm what I've done wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, hello. I have fixed the formatting for you. The curly brackets are just to say put your message here. Also putting the reply on a new line makes the formatting work. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Heruli

Hello. Do not make major undiscussed rewrites of articles as you did on Heruli, edits like that, giving undue weight to a source (Goffart) that deviates so totally from the mainstream view that it borders on being fringe, requires a thorough discussion, and a clear support from other editors, before being made. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the recent arbitration case request involving you. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scirii, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galatians and Carpi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carpi and Dacian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Andrew,

I'm the user you helped with the Robert le Fort page. I just wanted to thank you for your help. I'm having a devil of a time figuring out the technical part of using the pages. I'm trying to understand the instructions in the help section, but they're just beyond me. Is there a place where it's explained a bit more simply and could you point me to me? I'd really appreciate it! Thanks again. --Darkliest (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Darkliest: yes, there is a whole network of useful pages. If you type "WP:" or "HELP:" or "TEMPLATE:" or "MOS:" into the beginning of your search then it will search within those parts of Wikipedia and not within the articles. You could also start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents Good luck! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vandals, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Probus and Lech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Oium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Byelorussia, Ablabius and Pontus

Germani cisrhenani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Batavi

Wielbark culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wielbark

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Silva carbonaria.png

Thanks for uploading File:Silva carbonaria.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Additions to Goths

Hi Andrew Lancaster

I understand that you may believe that the edition will be too big, but previously the information about the Visigoth art was very poor. I found it incredible that Visigoth goldsmithing and Visigoth architecture were not treated .I have only added that, and I haven't edited on historical visigothic facts or Visigothic kingdoms. The difference in favor of the Visigoths has an explanation, it happens because I don't know enough about the Ostrogoths, it would be very daring for me to try to edit about them. I finished the editing and it took me several hours, and the user Carlstak made some corrections that I appreciate. In the same way, if you think something can be improved, you do it without a problem. The truth is that now I see a more complete and better article about Goths,but I promise not to expand on this with further information. About the general Goths article I could also expand it as soon as I can, especially in goldsmithing and architecture, and I was really planning to do it soon. I appreciate your interest in improving the articles, in that we must all collaborate because that way Wikipedia will be better every day. Greetings, nice to meet you.--REKKWINT (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edition

Hi Andrew Srnec just reversed my editing. Lost work. I left him a message. Without his permission, I'll say goodbye.--REKKWINT (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Alberts, WJ

According to this, it's not a double name. I checked before fixing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you are quick. I double checked and reverted myself already. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well then, seems you are quick too! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Werner, Count in Hesbaye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hainaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gilbert, Count of the Maasgau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank

Hesbaye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Louvain

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancestors of the Franks

Hi, I am curious whether you have a source for "Indeed, maybe some Germanic peoples such as the ancestors of the Franks did not speak Germanic at all until they learned it during imperial times", but I didn't want to divert the conversation at Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Angles_and_Saxons_in_distinction. It seems possible having looked at some Celtic articles. TSventon (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Added content

Hi Andrew Lancaster, I've added content to the Visigoths article: architecture and goldsmithing, I have consulted Srnc, and he has very kindly reviewed and approved it. What do you think about the new edition?--REKKWINT (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I can see there are already notes asking for sourcing information Sorry, I've added some sources.--REKKWINT (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pagus of Hasbania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Louvain and Amblève (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Pagus Lomacensis

Hello, Andrew Lancaster,

Thank you for creating Pagus Lomacensis.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Several sections and main list are badly sourced. Please provide additional sources and in-line citations. Thanks. Great article apart from that.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

scope_creep^Talk 20:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Obstruction of constructive efforts at maintaining Germania

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Sechinsic (talk) 21:08, 26 August 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about you on my talk page

Hello Andrew. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Andrew Lancaster and Goths where User:Berig has asked about the status of my prior warning to you about Goths, from February 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Constantinople

Hello, AndrewLancaster:

I recently removed a reference to Constantinople in the article Heruli, and note that you have replaced it, on the grounds that mention of the city is useful as a geographic marker.

Conversely I would say that the paragraph under discussion contains three geographic markers, independent of the names of cities: the Herulians are described as traveling from the Sea of Azov, past the Danube delta, and into the straits of the Bosporus. I am uncertain that mention of Constantinople is needed to supplement these three, especially because the city has not borne that name since the fifteenth century. An appropriate urban geographic marker for a modern reader would be “near modern Istanbul”.

My edit was motivated principally by the fact that the city of Byzantion, captured by the Heruli at the time under discussion, was later refounded as Constantinopolis; to call it “near Constantinople” is, in any case, not correct.

Thank you for your consideration of so long a communication on a minor point. I have laid out the above because I believe that excising Constantinople was justified, but I wished to do something more reasoned and substantive with that belief than commence an edit war.

~MK ManuelKomnenos (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@ManuelKomnenos: thanks for taking the time, and my apologies for doing that edit so quickly. It is not my normal style, but I feared I would not get back to it. (So there was no risk of an edit war, but I understand why you might fear that on Wikipedia!) The aim I had was just to make sure one of places a suitable replacement. I think “near modern Istanbul” would be fine, for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good. I have edited the article, describing the Herulians’ activities in the straits of the Bosporus as being “in the area of modern Istanbul”.

It is a natural (if not a nice) part of the Internet that things can feel personal when they aren’t. I like to expend a few words, just to make sure I’m not giving that impression.

Thanks for your reply! ManuelKomnenos (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

GPinkerton is permanently blocked.[1] Just a heads up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: ok, thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Kudos

Looking at Talk:Goths and Talk:Germanic peoples, you truly have the patience of a saint. I don't really agree with you on everything (summarizing my views: Peter Heather seems to get it right most of the time but doesn't give enough weight to philological arguments) but there is a deluge of outdated scholarship and polemical (indeed outright political) editing directed at those and related articles which you seem to counter somewhat effectively. Guess I should give you a barnstar or something, but I ain't about that lame Wikipedia shit, so just a word of thanks will have to suffice. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: I appreciate it! I am not always sure what my own views are. I have been more interested in making sure we reflect what the sources say. On Goths I often find myself defending Heather, and asking for his more detailed works to be used. I do feel discussion has gotten better on that. (It should never really have been so difficult. He is quite mainstream on most points, and on points where he is known for a debatable position it is not difficult to explain the differences.) On Germanic peoples, concerning the question of when to call a people "Germanic" I think the most important point about Heather is that he represents one position which he and his allies don't deny is out-of-fashion in academia. They are more popular among paperback readers. In academia, this is a terminology question and a bit philosophical, but I think for many people on Wikipedia it is a quite different emotional connection they feel to the word, and so people like Heather get used for reasons they might not really agree with if they knew about them. One thing which helps me keep going is that many of the writers in this field are good debaters and enjoyable to read. However, I have a pet theory that their colourful debating rhetoric possibly misleads many readers who are not used to that style, into thinking the differences between these academics is much bigger than it is? Nishidani made a similar common on one of the talk pages, something to the effect of how these guys all go to conferences together, and they might occasionally get excited, but they also cite each other constantly and respectfully. I noticed a comment on Halsall's blog where he got frustrated because people started saying that, because he argued against Heather on some points, he must be someone who does not believe the Goths could be descended from Germanic-speaking migrants.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Was your description of Heather as a "well-known "Tory" and pro-Brexit, anti-immigration historian"[2] intended to defend him? Krakkos (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't know of any mistake in that description, and it is not my aim to defend (or attack) Heather as a person, only to defend his most well-accepted academic work, but I think the context of my words is more specific than that: I was pointing out that two academics who can easily (and not necessarily wrongly) be described in strong terms that make people angry, actually agree on the mythical status of the Berig story about an immigration of an entire nation from Scandinavia to Poland. My words:

Honestly I don't think Berig [the Wikipedian] correctly appreciated that there is a definite dominant negative position on this topic among the most cited commentators on that work including the well-known "Tory" and pro-Brexit, anti-immigration historian, Peter Heather, so it involves a broad spectrum of experts on the old written narratives, not just Walter Goffart (who seems to make people angry in the other direction).

FWIW I had not noticed this was posted before Wikipedian Berig's sudden attempts to get me blocked started. Amazing stuff. Anyway, the short version is that I don't see myself as literally defending any specific position. I'm trying to make sure we use the best sources, whatever they are, and don't get confused by them. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belgium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing cite in African admixture in Europe

Back in 2009, you added a short cite to "Cavalli-Sforza (1993)" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? It appears the same reference is missing in Genetic history of Europe and Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula. Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Goths

So you saw fit to remove my comment altogether? -- Elphion (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies -- it's still there, just lost in all the text. -- Elphion (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Elphion: yes, it's messy. I'll separate your remark out. In fact I also forgot to respond to it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Picard language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hainaut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lambert I, Count of Louvain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dyle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of replies at Talk:Germanic peoples

Hi Andrew, while I don’t doubt you’re acting in good faith, I think it would benefit everyone if you limited the number and length of your replies at that discussion. At the moment you’re replying to pretty much everyone at great length, which might give the impression of bludgeoning and is somewhat exhausting for anyone trying to keep up with the discussion. Maybe just see what others have to say for a little while.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: yes I think the same way. I wanted to answer the interesting new responses of two editors. Always a dilemma in situations like this. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

Andrew--Hope you are well. So one thing we can say for sure; we now have some legitimate debate around the content going on, much of which is more vitriolic than necessary. You've managed to keep your usual diplomatic head on straight so props for that. Somehow, I think we're still neglecting the subject of audience. Teaching introductory undergrad classes is very different than what happens in Grad programs or PhD ones as you know; keep that in mind. What I have wanted all along was a balance of the schools of thinking. Yes, the Vienna school has changed in recent times, much of it due to the efforts of Pohl, but not without the contributions of other scholars (not all from the same school) like Ian Wood, Helmut Reimitz, Michael Kulikowski, Clemens Gantner, Gerda Heydemann, Andrew Gillett, Sebastian Brather, and Florin Curta.

While I concur with bloodofox about the idea of parsing the article and the general distinctions he made, I am not a fan of his bellicosity in this case, which you probably already know; the two of us having our share of history but far more civilly by comparison. If we can move towards some conciliation and collaboration without constant disputes (no Krakkos so maybe that can happen after all—the two of you being oil and water), I'll try to peck away here and there in my free time. However, I do have academic responsibilities elsewhere. If you honcho the endeavor to reformulate this article once consensus is reached (against or for my position of parsing--starting to become a little agnostic on this based on comments from others, yourself included), since you've made so much effort to the article already, please try and synopsize the scholarly debates or at least truncate them to the extent possible. --Obenritter (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, funnily enough it is a better discussion than we've had for some time in some ways. It is good that you mention your old point about audience. I do think about it, and it is a valid point. Here are my current fuzzy thoughts. I think that WP's culture insists on not simplifying, and in practice it does cover very academic topics. However in reality this might for example be a reason for splitting articles. This has been in the back of my mind when I've proposed that the "concept of Germanic" should perhaps be split out as an article. That could be more scholarly. However, I accept that any kind of split is going to be complicated and difficult to get agreement for, so maybe this thought leads nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Obenritter: hmm. If I see the direction of discussion, towards making the article more about the history of research and focused upon old themes of philology, archaeology and comparative studies, and the debates about them, the article would contain a lot more scholarly themes.[3] I don't know how that can work, as the article is already so full. (You can blame me, but at least my aim was to try to go in the other direction eventually.) I think bloodofox underestimates the complexity of the way these scholarly debates have evolved (partly based on Wolfram and the younger Vienna school, but they have certainly adapted based on criticism from the likes Goffart, Amory, Kulikowski, Halsall, Curta, Geary etc, and many German-speaking Germanists have certainly followed). Bloodofox is apparently not aware of that literature at all, thinking no one ever cites Goffart, and Pohl and the Vienna school are not the point of reference for anyone except me, but the reality is that the old ideas Bloodofox seems to want to insert are now strongly questioned, not by fringe researchers but by mainstream colleagues, which means we can't simply give a simple consensus story. We have to explain debates, and that takes space and makes things complicated. I don't have a clear vision of how to avoid this, but I have this vague idea of separating out the core historical narrative which is now pushed down the article, to give WP a more readable story that links to, but does not dwell too much on, the debated stuff. The devil is in the details. Putting aside the pettiness, the post I just linked to actually looks, at least in some ways, similar to the types of musings I've been making, but similarly vague I'm afraid. However, it is not seeing avoidance of scholarly detail as an aim as far as I can see. I've found the exchange with Yngvadottir to be a good exercise, and a fresh perspective on how things look to someone with what seems to be a similar reading background to Bloodofox, but less hot air. That exchange has been more wordy, but if you have time you might also find it interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Much of the problem resides in the fact that so much of what we have to draw on comes from a broad variety of sources, lots of it written not by Germanic people themselves, but almost always in vultus de foris and with the cultural baggage that entails. Greeks called everyone who did not speak Greek barbarians and the reductionism with defining "others" for western Europeans has been problematic since. Goffart is not a fringe scholar to anyone else from what I can tell (save a certain individual) and the fact that you are well-versed on the latest changes to the Vienna school (at least the older version of it), has always made me respectful of your approach to scholarship. While the "devil may be in the details" we don't need every weed imaginable in the garden if you will. That's why I stress synthesizing and synopsis where feasible. Things get ugly if scholars from each side constantly try to one-up each other and I certainly don't want to get drawn into that myself, nor do I want to see a Wikipedia page or its associated Talk page reeking of disputation. Like Ermenrich noted, make your points, keep them succinct and ignore any trivial matters, even when people make unfounded aspersions. You have no need to justify every point as plenty of editors around here who share your interests in improving this content, already respect your opinion (even in places where we disagree). I'll look at that content you mentioned later this weekend. If I could purchase you a good ale or a smooth lager (whichever you preferred), I would; if not simply for your determination and persistence on a difficult subject. Respect.--Obenritter (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A wonderful thought. Thanks Obenritter! But I will beat those options, for tomorrow I plan to drink a Belgian trappist beer. I shall be thinking of you. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Prost!!!--Obenritter (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hi Andrew, I feel obligated to reach out to you after the comments I made at the Germanic peoples this morning. I have great respect for your dedication and persistence, as Obenritter, for whom I also have great respect, has expressed above.

I made that post rather flippantly, but I do really believe that it might be good for you to minimize your involvement in the article for a while. I have felt, as you know, some frustration at the volume and complexity of your comments on the talk page, and I know I am not the only one. I thought maybe some progress could be made from this impasse, and then perhaps you could rejoin the process with renewed vigor. That's just my opinion, and a hopeful wish, of course.

I must confess that presently I am not in great mental shape myself. I haven't slept in 36 hours at this point because of some disastrous developments in my life the last 2 days, and it's not over. Editing WP is therapy for me, but I'm a mess right now. I wish you all the best, and still hope that someday the article can reach a state of equilibrium that accounts for the positions of the various schools of thought concerning the subject.

Take care, Carlstak (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: I appreciate that message a lot. I'm sorry to hear things aren't well, and I hope they get better soon. I think as long as editors don't resort to parodying each other, and the sources, then there should be a logical way to divide the topic up. I've tried to propose lots of admittedly incomplete ideas, and registered a lot of points about things that can wrong, but it has become clear to me that others now need to go through a similar thought process without me. The good news is that we finally have a bigger and more diverse group of people actually looking at the article again. I am not married to any particular article structure. I'll offer advice for example sources, vote when votes are called, etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't relish doing this Andrew, and I believe you are acting in good faith, but your response length and other POV-related issues are out of control and not getting better.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: it seems a very spiteful thing to do IMHO, and you of course don't mention what has triggered this, and how you are involved. You are using ANI as a weapon during a short-term argument that got you personally annoyed. What can I say? You've given a distorted summary but you are clearly now on a roll and if I answer, then I am bludgeoning, and everyone else can say what they want. I am quite surprised and a little saddened.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daci.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

African admixture in Europe

Hi Andrew, I've been chasing down dangling refs that have no sources and in September 2009 (!!) on African admixture in Europe, you added Cavalli-Sforza, 1993. Unfortunately I cannot find the source, do you by any chance know what this was? I've hidden the dangling ref for now, if you could help us with this one it would be greatly appreciated! Even after 11 years :-) - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: that was a while back but even then I am guessing I meant this as a kind of placeholder in want of a better source. Cavalli-Sforza is the best-known and most respectable name from the early days of such comments, and even though he used older technologies than we have now some of the basic generalizations have stood the test of time fairly well. I used to spend more time on these articles but one challenge is that the field has been fast-moving but slow in producing a good secondary literature. So which sources are the best to use? The comment you tagged is in any case quite uncontroversial. After a bit of a google, I believe the 1993 source will be this one, specifically about Europe: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7520820/ and specifically mentioning the dominant "gradient" that "was generated by a migration of Neolithic farmers from Anatolia". Thanks for your efforts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks to be the one. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Gau and Pagus

At last, a readable discussion. All the blocks are checked: In English, by a reputable scholar, provides references to Baerten and Nonn. If only it could be as such in Wikipedia! Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

HB Antwerp

Hello Andrew, nice to meet you. I've been working on a draft for HB Antwerp, a diamond technology company based in Antwerp which is currently redlinked in the Sewelo article. Since you are an active member of WP:BELGIUM, I thought you might be interested in taking a look. If you think the article is ready to be included, please feel free to do so (I have a COI and therefore cannot publish it myself). If you have ideas or feedback on how to improve the draft, I would appreciate your insight as well. Thanks so much for your time, Margxx (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Margxx:, hi. I don't have much time to spend on it, but I can imagine the first 2 things experienced editors will look at in this case are notability and the quality of the sources. If you have a good range of high quality sources explicitly mentioning the company as important (not just listing it in passing for example) that would resolve both of those types of concerns. So I would try to focus on making sure you don't use any sources which might look dodgy. (I am not sure about Hypebeast for example.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks so much for taking the time to check this out, I really appreciate it. Will take a look at the source you mentioned. Margxx (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I looked into the Hypebeast source and removed it as you suggested, thank you. I believe the remaining sources demonstrate notability. If you have time to take another look and think it's ready to be included, would you consider moving it into mainspace? Thanks again for your help. Margxx (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Khazar hypothesis debate re-energized

Since you have previously edited the Khazars page and know about the debate over ties to Ashkenazi Jewry, and are a current or recent editor, please weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources for the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. You may also wish to ask other editors to give their own feedback on how to proceed in covering the new and upcoming genetic studies. In the past, Jayjg, Briangotts, and Humus_sapiens have also edited Wikipedia on this topic, but none of them have been active lately and as a result all three of those I named have lost or will soon lose their admin and editing privileges. 2600:1000:B12B:24B:C66D:AB21:B40B:4CDE (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert of Namur (died 981), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Active intellect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Niccolò Machiavelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. The neutrality issues at Science have not been addressed. Please see Template:POV lead § When to remove for more information.      — Freoh 19:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: your template, the edsum, and your talk page posts all describe various different things. But in a nutshell there is no clear issue except that you don't agree with everyone. The discussion happened already, and then you placed a template after the consensus was clear, as a reaction. That is not what these templates are for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottokar II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I like your Hobbes quote on your page! :D

The title! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Merovech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Childeric.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Leger family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bexhill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Invisible hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Providence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Getae

The map you deleted wasn't necessarily a real one, only a representation of the Getae people as depicted by Strabo, not by anyone else. I only say this for you to know so there won't be any misunderstanding. Portasa Cristian (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

((re|Portasa Cristian}} I don't think Strabo is clearly describing the situation shown in the map. He admits himself to ignorance of the details. On the Getae article I have added more of what he said in order to show that he did not seem to imagine them stretching west of the Iron Gates. His point about the Suebi and Getae bordering each other is apparently only based on the fact that their territories both adjoin the same complex of forest and mountains. (For example, the Carpathian mountains.) We need to be careful of anything which requires interpretation like this. These are cases where it best to bring in modern secondary sources to help understand how the old texts should be interpreted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point about Strabo's description of the Getae and their territory is valid. While he provides some insights, he also acknowledges his own ignorance of certain details. It's crucial to recognize the limitations of ancient texts and exercise caution when interpreting them, especially regarding geographical boundaries and interactions between ancient peoples. Incorporating modern secondary sources can indeed help provide a more nuanced understanding of how to interpret these old texts effectively. Portasa Cristian (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And also, as an extra info, the map showed the lands inhabited by Getae families, not their territory. The Getae, like many other tribes, were living in an expanded land among other cultures. I think the map was essential to the page, but that's only my opinion. Portasa Cristian (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not see what sources or reasoning you can use to justify the maps. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Strabo. Strabo is the source of the map. "Strabo one of the first ancient sources to mention Getae and Dacians, stated in his Geographica (c. 7 BC – 20 AD) that the Dacians lived in the western parts of Dacia, "towards Germania and the sources of the Danube", while the Getae lived in the eastern parts, towards the Black Sea, both south and north of the Danube. The ancient geographer also wrote that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, after stating the same about Getae and Thracians."

Strabo's account of the lands inhabited by the Getae:

"As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis, the portion which is just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi; then immediately adjoining this is the land of the Getae, which, though narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister Danube on its southern side and on the opposite side along the mountain-side of the Hercynian Black Forest (for the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains), afterwards broadens out towards the north as far as the Tyragetae; but I cannot tell the precise boundaries" Portasa Cristian (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

don't forget that the map was made after Strabo sources, not other sources, only Strabo, so obviously the map is an approximate one, not an accurate one Portasa Cristian (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So to clarify further, this map is solely based on the geographical information provided by Strabo regarding the inhabited lands of the Getae, without incorporating any additional sources, thus reflecting only Strabo's perspective. Portasa Cristian (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

But where does Strabo describe anything like the map you've been posting, stretching almost to France? And where does Strabo say that "the Getae, like many other tribes, were living in an expanded land among other cultures" He describes them, as do other classical authors, living on the lower Danube east of the Iron gates. I think the map is your own creation and not based on Strabo? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The map doesn't stretch to France or even to the Alps; it expands towards Germany, as described by Strabo. I created the map myself, but I didn't upload it to the page. Additionally, I'm not a 'Dacian propagandist' because I've created maps about other empires such as Armenia, Carthage, Akkadian, and Goguryeo. As for the quote regarding the Getae living in an expanded land among other cultures, that's attributed to scholars, not myself. However, it's a valid point as the Getae did live alongside other tribes, even if not precisely in the same lands but in close proximity, such as the Dacians and Bastarnae. This is why the map is titled 'Getae Tribal Lands'. Portasa Cristian (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of the maps I deleted from articles today show the Getae stretching into the Austrian alps at the very least, in an area due north of Italy. You also incorrectly show the Weser-Rhine region as being in the alps. I don't think the maps are carefully made. You mention "scholars". Which scholars? Your remarks about Getae "tribal lands", and about "other cultures", don't add anything because it is not clear what this means or what the source would be. Strabo is not the source for this. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Austrian Alps and the Weser-Rhine region may indeed not align with historical accounts. As for the mention of "scholars," I refer to academic researchers who have analyzed historical texts and archaeological evidence related to the Getae and other ancient cultures. Regarding the remarks about "tribal lands" and interactions with "other cultures," these are interpretations based on scholarly research, although I acknowledge the need for clearer sourcing in the context of the article. despite all of these, what should i do to the map to satisfy you? Portasa Cristian (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

by the way I still want to make the map after Strabo, just tell me what to fix. Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

i made a new map, i hope it will satisfy you, if you want i can add more. This map contains all the Dacian tribes, including the Daco-Celts and Daco-Thracians lands as some tribes lived in a tribal Confederation and some in a tribal Federation (tribal union like Bastarnae, Daci, Getae, Costobocii) of course according to Strabo

here is the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tribal_Federations_and_Confederationd_of_Dacians_and_Getae.png Portasa Cristian (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead of saying "scholars" and "scholarly research" you should name the scholars and their publications. That is a basic point about how we work on Wikipedia. The map still shows the same enormous area being ruled by a "confederation". I don't see anything in Strabo to justify any of this. He does not mention most of these tribes. He also does not mention any of them being in a big confederation. The tribes are not even in their normal places, and some are a mystery to me such as the Daco-Celts in Austria. Where does Strabo mention these? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In that era, Strabo's knowledge of the Dacian tribes was limited, often referring to them broadly as the Getae or Dacians. Indeed, various tribes like the Daco-Celts in modern-day Hungary and Austria, such as the Teurisci, Anarti, and Eravisci, as well as the Daco-Thracians like the Tribalii, Moesi, Corbizi, and Trizi existed. While Strabo didn't explicitly mention these tribes, he encompassed them under the broader terms of Getae and Dacians, which is why he described their territory as extending into the western parts of Dacia, towards Germania and the sources of the Danube. And also, most of them are in their normal places, what tribes aren't in their initial lands? Some tribes, like the Teurisci, Anarti, Eravisci, Tribalii, Moesi, Corbizi, and Trizi, probably may have migrated or expanded beyond their initial territories over time. So, they might not have remained exclusively in their original lands as described in historical records. Dont think i'm a Romanian or Dacian "propagandist" as i'm not even fully romanian and I'll tell you again that I made lots of maps about other entities. So I will ask you again, what should the map have to satisfy you? Portasa Cristian (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about naming specific scholars, but it's challenging for me to provide exact references as there are numerous scholars who have contributed to our understanding of ancient history and tribal dynamics. Scholars from various fields of study have researched and written about historical entities, including the Dacian tribes. As a mapper, I rely on a variety of sources to create maps, and while I strive to ensure accuracy, I am not a historian or a scholar myself. My goal is to present information based on available sources and contribute to the discussion within the limitations of my expertise. Portasa Cristian (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that Strabo is not your source. I have never described you as a propagandist. I do not claim to know what you are thinking. However, this is clearly original research, and not suitable for Wikipedia. You seem like someone genuinely interested to learn more, but you clearly don't have good sources ready to explain these maps. You should FIRST collect good sources, get things clear in your own mind. Wikipedia is not the place to post new ideas or interesting guesses. By the way, you put a lot of weight on Strabo's comment about the sources of the Danube, but he makes confused remarks about where the source was, and he only says the Daci lived along part of that stretch between Bohemia and Romania, and he seems to mean in southern Hungary. there is also another division of the country which has endured from early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae — Getae, those who incline towards the Pontus and the east, and Daci, those who incline in the opposite direction towards Germany and the sources of the Ister. and then The Marisus River flows through their country into the Danuvius,​ on which the Romans used to convey their equipment for war; the "Danuvius" I say, for so they used to call the upper part of the river from near its sources on to the cataracts, I mean the part which in the main flows through the country, of the Daci, although they give the name "Ister" to the lower part, from the cataracts on to the Pontus, the part which flows past the country of the Getae. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I also understand your perspective on my map, but it's important to note that many other users have seen and considered it before you. While I respect your opinion, I want to emphasize that despite not being a historical scholar or historian, I've invested significant time and effort into studying Dacian history. It's a topic that fascinates me, and I've extensively documented my research. While the map may contain some errors, they are not major, and I always take care to thoroughly research any map I create before dedicating my time to it. Portasa Cristian (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No you have not taken such care, because you can't name your sources. It is original research. See WP:OR. It is not only the map which is original but also the whole concept of their being an enormous "confederation". This is a very big claim. The geographical errors are also honestly not small. You should look up the location of the Weser river for example. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion regarding the term 'confederation.' It was not intended to refer to anything depicted on the map itself. Regarding the geographical errors, I will carefully review the map to identify and correct any inaccuracies, including the location of the Weser river. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention, and I will make the necessary revisions to ensure the map meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and sourcing. Portasa Cristian (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The information for the map was primarily sourced from the Wikipedia page on Dacia, as well as various maps depicting Dacian territories. These sources provided valuable insights into the distribution and boundaries of Dacian tribes, which were used to inform the creation of the map. Portasa Cristian (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that honest explanation. As a next step you could look at the sources for some of the other tribes in the regions your maps cover. For example look at the Osii. Map making which summarizes what the articles are saying and adds no original claims is generally accepted on WP of course. My concern is that your maps sometimes go beyond that, and make very specific new claims. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the new map, I hope you like it. On the map, the darker the green color, the closer it is to the Dacian tribes, while the lighter green color indicates a greater distance from the Dacian tribes. Not all tribes are Dacian; for example, the tribes marked with blue color are Daco-Thracian tribes, here is the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacian_tribes.png

You have to know that not all the green space is Dacian, only the dark green. Portasa Cristian (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It still stretches way beyond areas normally considered Dacian. It still mentions tribes that are not normally considered Dacian. By removing the explanatory text which called it a confederation it now implies that all this area, and all these tribes were simply Dacian. So in a sense this is worse. Why are the Buri and Osii in these strange positions? Why are the Eravisci not near Budapest? But then again these groups are never normally considered to be Dacian or Getea. Nor are the Roxolani. Please take more time on this. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacians_tribes.png Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it just dawned on me that when I was crafting the other maps featuring the tribes, I inadvertently used a reference map depicting Dacia under Burebista and its campaign against the Boii and Taurici in Pannonia. Consequently, the tribes appeared to extend too far, mirroring the geographical context of that historical period. Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)