User talk:ABCEdit

Welcome!
Hello, ABCEditer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 01:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Pit-Comb Ware culture
I'm sorry, but I've reverted your edits to Pit-Comb Ware culture; the text you added said that

So, Pit-Comb Ware developed "developed in the northern woodlands of Eurasia," and/but "the oldest ones [of which? the ceramic?] have been discovered in China? This makes no sense to me, and I can't check the source, since it is written Japanese.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for writing perplexed sentences.

The oldest Pit-Comb Ware is discovered from remains of Xinglongwa culture (6200 BC - 5400 BC), in Liao river region, north China.

中国北方新石器文化研究の新展開【詳細報告】「東北アジアにおける先史文化の交流」 王 巍（中国社会科学院考古研究所・副所長）(in Japanese)
 * 5．中国東北部の興隆窪文化
 * ここ十年来、…
 * 興隆窪遺跡は…
 * 興隆窪遺跡の土器のほとんどは平底の円筒形土器であり、口縁外部、頸部と胴部にはそれぞれ違う文様を施すのも特徴的である. 連続の櫛目文が最も代表的な文様で、そのほか周回文、押型文、箆（へら）描き文、爪形文などがある（図3）. 


 * 5．Xinglongwa culture in north-east China
 * ここ十年来、…
 * 興隆窪遺跡は…
 * Most of the earthenware of the Xinglongbu ruins is a flat-bottomed cylindrical pottery, and it is also characteristic to apply different patterns to the outside of the rim, the neck and the torso. Continuous combs are the most representative patterns, and others are orchestra, pressed form, spatula drawing and nail form (Figure 3).

This is the oldest record on Pit-Comb Ware.

And it spread to Siberia later.


 * 第２版の解説(in Japanese)


 * ＜くしめもんどき　櫛目文土器＞
 * 櫛歯状の施文具で文様の施された土器の総称. 世界各地の各種時期の土器に認められるが，狭義には北欧から西シベリアにかけて分布する新石器時代の土器，また朝鮮半島の新石器時代の有文土器ないし幾何文土器と呼称されるものを指すのが普通である. 西シベリアの沿オビ地域の新石器時代の土器(前4千年紀終末～前3千年紀後半)は，すべて櫛目文を有する丸底土器である. このような器面全体を櫛目文でおおう新石器時代の丸底土器は，エニセイ流域のウニュク遺跡(前4千年紀終末～前3千年紀初頭)やアンガラ上流域のウスチ･ベラヤ遺跡第IIa層(前5千年紀)からも出土している.


 * ＜Pit-Comb Ware＞
 * It is a collective term of earthenware to which a pattern is given with a comb-toothed facsimile. It is recognized in the earthenware of various times around the world, but in the narrow sense it refers to the Neolithic pottery distributed from the Northern Europe to the West Siberia, also referred to as the Neolithic Era figured pottery or geometric patterned pottery of the Korean Peninsula. The Neolithic pottery in the Ob region, in the western Siberian region (from the end of the previous millennium to the latter half of the third millennium) is a round bottom soil with comb text. The Neolithic round bottom soil cladding which covers the entire surface of this instrument as a texture of a comb is also excavated from the Uenuc ruins of the Enisei watershed (from the end of the 4th millennium to the beginning of the 3 rd millennium Beginning) and the Ust-Bereya ruins IIa layer (the 5th millennium)in the upper region of Angara.

Estimated time Pit-Comb Ware arrived:
 * Xinglongwa culture : 8200-7400 years BP
 * upper region of Angara : 7000-6000 years BP
 * Enisei watershed : about 6000 yaers BP
 * Ob River region : about 5700 years BP

--ABCEditer (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup C-V20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Haplogroup_C-V20 check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Haplogroup_C-V20?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Proto-Mongoloid) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Proto-Mongoloid, ABCEditer!

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

"Looked like a notability fail, but it did indeed google."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Template:East Asian topics, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Backendgaming (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Backendgaming. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Template:East Asian topics, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Backendgaming (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emishi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Emishi check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Emishi?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Uralic "peoples"
Hi. We don't even have an article on Indo-European "peoples", and I see no evidence this is a notable topic, unless we're going to engage in OR and postulate an ethnicity for every language family on the planet. (Ethnicities which would become invalid if a family is discarded, which is not how ethnicity works.) Finno-Ugric is notable because there are Finno-Ugric cultural associations, but there aren't parallel sets of organizations that include and exclude Samoyedic. That is, there is no cultural correlate to the linguistic classification, and no ethnicity that would be identifiable without the linguistics, just people who reify language families as supposed ethnicity because they have nothing else to go on. We could redirect to Uralic languages instead. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To User:Kwamikagami：There is an article titled "Austronesian peoples". Why you don't accept "Uralic peoples"？--ABCEdit (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Because there is plenty of academic coverage of putative Austronesian peoples, their historical expansion from Formosa, their intermixing with indigenous peoples, expansion into the uninhabited Pacific, etc. They left a pretty clear signal in the archeological record. Actually, we're probably only talking Malayo-Polynesian here, not Austronesian as a whole, but people generally use the latter name. The same cannot be said of Indo-European, Uralic as a whole, Sino-Tibetan, etc. -- there's lots of stuff under linguistics, but not so much under other disciplines, and those that are are dependent on the linguistics for their conception. No-one wouldn't linked Samoyed to Finno-Ugric for cultural or historical reasons. There isn't, for example, an independently identifiable trace of Uralic mythology that matches up to the language family. Finno-Ugric is different not because of academic coverage but because of cultural conceptions, though to what extent that's actually Finno-Ugric (the linguistic idea having entered popular consciousness and altered their self-identity) as opposed to just Finnic (which is transparently obvious to native speakers) I don't know. There are still groups that claim Hungarian is Turkic, for example, and ethnographically they might be as Turkic as they are Finno-Ugric due to contact with Turkic peoples.
 * We used to have a lot of really bad OR articles about reified linguistic groups, presenting them as ethnography. Under 'Papuan peoples', most of the individuals and ethnicities were actually Austronesian rather than Papuan! Most of these articles contradicted themselves in putative genetic evidence (like "specific" genetic signals that were substantially shared by their neighbors, so how is that "specific"?), engaged in OR mythological claims (again, areal tendencies that did not correspond to the family and have not been reconstructed as originating with the family), and often seemed more nationalistic than academic.
 * I generally left articles based on low-level families, where the relationship of the languages would be obvious to native speakers and so could easily contribute to ethnicity. Things like Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Dravidian, etc. I don't know how many of those articles are actually justified, but wasn't aggressive with them the way I was with families that are too deep for people to identify without historical linguistic reconstruction. The idea that an ethnicity would disappear if linguists debunked a proposed family is ridiculous. If Austronesian were debunked, archeologists would scramble to explain the signal in the archeological record -- the signal wouldn't disappear (unless it's only due to people reading linguistic theory into the arch. record, but then we'd still have a notable theoretical adjustment to make). Similarly, if Finno-Ugric were debunked (e.g. proto-Finno-Ugric found to be synonymous with proto-Uralic), then the FU cultural organizations would still exist. They might reconceive themselves as Uralic, or they might not.
 * BTW, we may have a problem at Koreanic languages. You had removed the Buyeo languages from Koreanic in several articles, but left some contradictions as well, and I tried to make the articles consistent by removing Buyeo completely from our basic presentation of Koreanic (except of course noting that the lit doesn't all agree), but have been reverted in at 'Koreanic languages'. (Which I just un-reverted.) I don't know which claim is better supported today (though my last reading of the lit was that Buyeo was probably not Koreanic, which some people seem to read as synonymous for 'languages of Korea'), and we do want to cover where the lit makes different claims, but of course we shouldn't actually contradict ourselves from article to article. Anyway, I thought you might want to take a look in case I got something wrong.
 * Thanks for pinging me. I have too many pages on my watch list to see responses. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Koreanic
Hi. Re. your edits to Koreanic, you need *evidence*. I have no idea whether the division of Koreanic into Koguryoic and Han is legitimate, but if you dispute it you need to provide sources. You also need evidence to remove languages from the family when we do have reliable sources (e.g. Vovin, who's a credible scholar) that they belong there. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The usage of Koreanic languages can only be used for Korean, Jeju, and at best its ancestor Silla. In Glottolog, Koreanic languages contains only Korean and Jeju. I do not know any examples including other languages in Koreanic languages. Please provide evidence that Korean languages includes Han languages and Koguryoic languages.--ABCEdit (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is in the sources in the article. If you have better, please provide.

Also, the idea that Buyeo and Baekje are related to the Japonic languages is quite controversial and AFAICT not well supported in the lit. If you're going to claim that they simply *are* related, you'll need better sources than what we have! (Also, "Buyeo" might should be moved back to Fuyu languages, which is the name I've seen used for it in the lit.) — kwami (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The evidence is "Young Kyun Oh, 2005. Old Chinese and Old Sino-Korean"?　It is dangerous to determine with only one research.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also Vovin.

I moved 'Buyeo languages' to Japanese–Koguryoic languages, as that name seems to be more common now, and there seems to have been some confusion by past editors as to what the article was about (e.g. that Japonic 'might' be included in the Japanese–Koguryoic proposal, when it's essential to it.) — kwami (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

For some background, Beckwith called his proposal "Fuyu", and that's what I named the article when I created it. But someone moved it to "Buyeo" because that's the Korean rendering of the name. Of course, that violates OR, since AFAIK the lit does not refer to the family as "Buyeo". Anyway, Beckwith now uses "Japanese–Koguryoic", as do several other authors, so that's probably the best name for it. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday I also created Koguryoic languages for the content that had been added to Japanese–Koguryoic but which excluded Japonic. This parallels the stub Han languages. However, I don't know how well supported the Koguryoic-Han division is in the lit, or whether either purported branch is notable enough to have its own article. Perhaps they should both be merged into Koreanic. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ainu language moves
Do not move a page that is currently under a move discussion, especially ones where you yourself started the discussion. I've reverted your move of Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language as the discussion is still open, and as the proposer of the move you are clearly involved and shouldn't be moving the page in the first place. Please don't move it again; let an uninvolved editor make that decision. Thank you. SkyWarrior 20:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Haplogroup D-M15 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Haplogroup_D-M15 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Haplogroup_D-M15?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Jarawa people
 * Haplogroup D-M174 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Haplogroup_D-M174 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Haplogroup_D-M174?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Jarawa people
 * Haplogroup D-M55 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Haplogroup_D-M55 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Haplogroup_D-M55?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Jarawa people
 * Haplogroup D-Z27276 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Haplogroup_D-Z27276 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Haplogroup_D-Z27276?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Jarawa people

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Problems/malfunctions with haplogroup D maps
Hello. Recently I have noticed a problem with the maps/map depicting the proposed migration route of Y-haplogroup D (uploaded to the various pages on Y-haplogroup D and its branches and to the Jomon people page). For some reason, when the map isnlarged (when you click on them), it does not depict the Haber et al study's proposal. When it is enlarged, the map no longer depicts the migration of basal D (and D2) from Africa to Eurasia (as the source proposes), but instead flips to showing the reverse (showing D originating in the Middle East and migrating to Africa, thus inaccurately representing the source). (At least that is what happens when the map is viewed from my desktop computer. When viewed from a laptop or phone it is even worse; the map does not seem to show the African origin route at all but rather only Asian origin which inacurately represents the source.) I have removed them from the pages where they were to avoid misrepresenting the source. I am not sure if this problem was present when they were first uploaded (I thought it was not; I did not notice it), and I do not have the technical skill to fix it. I wondered it there might be anything you could do to address it since I believe it was you who uploaded them/it. Any attention to the matter is much appreciated. Here is the map file in question (below) so you can see what mean (it either shows an Asian origin or changes to one when you click on it): Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,.
 * The map was improperly changed by Satoshi Kondo. He is doing problematic edits in many language wiki pages by using IP addresses. He repeats removing my-creating Haplogroup D migration map from the pages and replacing it with the improper map based on his own research, which is that Haplogroup D spread from Near East. It seems that he tampered with my-creating file itself improperly since I deleted his file in many language wiki pages. I have changed it back to the appropriate map. Please resurrect the map on the pages on which you deleted it.
 * Thank you.--ABCEdit (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for your reply and for your help. I am a bit cautious, but (as soon as I can) I will check the files to see if they now portray the correct maps. And if they do, I will resurect them (both here on the English Wikipedia and on the French and Spanish pages from which I removed them). Also, has that user (who tampered with the maps) and their IPs been reported and/or blocked? Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Satoshi Kondo is a blocked user. He seems to be active in Wikimedia now. I think some of his IPs are
 * 80.243.173.100
 * 89.178.222.83
 * 193.81.212.210
 * 212.241.98.39
 * 213.162.72.234
 * 213.162.72.255
 * 213.142.96.74
 * I don't know if these IPs has been reported. I think he uses many other IPs in many language wikipedias. Thank you.--ABCEdit (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. It seems like a difficult problem, since he seems very determined to disruptively edit such a wide range of pages across many language Wikis in this way. I have restored the maps (which seem to be fixed, thank you) to several of the pages here on the English Wiki, and will likely do so for the remaining pages when I can.
 * Also, there was an IP on the French and Spanish pages insisting on adding an alternate Asian origin map to the Haplogroup D articles because Haber et al. considered the possibility (even though they concluded in favor of an African origin for D and rejected the Asian origin proposal). I reverted them with explanations in the edit notes, but they kept insisting and reverting me (and even accused me of borderline vandalism! - I discussed with them in Talk but eventually gave in partly because I am not very familiar with the French or Spanish Wikipedias, but I possibly should not have give in). I now wonder if this person was an IP of the same user we are discussing. Here is my conversation with them (mostly in English) on the French Wikipedia (and thank you again). https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:80.243.173.100#Haplogroupe_D Skllagyook (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits to the Haplogroup D-CTS3946 page by an IP editor
Hello. Recently an IP editor (an IP range, one of whose IPs is User:46.125.250.97) has added material to the Haplogroup D-CTS3946 page that I do not believe is appropriate or relevant. They added a study from Cabrera et al. 2018 arguing for an Adian origin for haplogroup DE, written before D2/D0 and D-CTS3946 (that is, before the 2019 Habet et al. study that discovered the D2 haplogroup and revised the tree of D). I repeatedlt tried to explain this to the IP editor in detail, but they seem not to understand. They have also made other seemigly biased edits to the page, seemingly pushing the idea of Asian origin. My discussions with the IP are on the Talk page here [] and here: [] I have also written a message to administrator User:Doug Weller regarding this. Could you perhaps look at this? I thought you might be a good person to message since you created the article. Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. I see. I will comment in Talk:Haplogroup D-CTS3946.--ABCEdit (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nivkh languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Semantics (linguistics) has been nominated for merging
Category:Semantics (linguistics) has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)