User talk:Krakkos/Archive

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Krakkos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

move Celts (modern) to Celtic identity
I am going to revert this edit. Such move requests are not done using this depreciated template.

If you want to put in a request for a page move please read WP:RM and follow the guidance of how to place such a request on to the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your recent editing history at Greeks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * These are really important, especially when there is no clear justification for an edit. Having found that your edits to Celts seem to contradict the source (which suggests you just ignored the source and added your personal analysis), I'm tempted to revert most of your edits as unjustified. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And not to pile on, but at Ptolemaic Dynasty, all I was asking was that you cite either a reliable source, include an edit summary, or cite a discussion to gain consensus. I clearly assumed good faith as noted by "reverted good faith edits by". I'm hoping you're not that IP, or in cahoots with that IP, because if so that could be considered sock puppetry. I am, for the time being, going to assume that that's just my paranoia kicking in, but I will monitor it. Edit summary, edit summary, edit summary. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Cimmerians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Alyattes and Iranian


 * Sea Peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Aegean and Achaeans


 * Seleucid dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Olympianism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaulish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | 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) 10:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Military history of ancient Gaul
I don't agree with redirecting this to "battles involving the Gauls." Military history is more than a list of battles. It can include articles on military structure and organization, types of equipment, subcategories on military commanders and ranks, and so on. Compare Category:Military history of ancient Rome. I think you might want to ask for some input at WP:WikiProject Celts on some of the changes you're making singlehandedly. No offense, but you're making rather sweeping changing for someone with fewer than 300 edits. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. See my response at my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Helvetii
Hello. You have made several edits to various pages changing the identification of the Helvetii as Gauls rather than Celts. On what sources do you base these edits?  Sandstein  22:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talkpage. Krakkos (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Britannica
Thanks for your work but I really don't think the Britannica is a satisfactory source. See for instance the discussion at and my comments at Talk:Tocharians. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Cimbrian War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus and Marcus Junius Silanus


 * Gannicus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Castus


 * John of Gothia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Doros


 * Kassites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hittite


 * Samnites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Battle of the Colline Gate


 * Third Servile War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Freedom fighters


 * Wusun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Green eyes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Hellenistic period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gandara


 * Taurini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ligurian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hittites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Europeans (check to confirm | 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) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Yule, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrián de Moxica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nemesis and Native Americans (check to confirm | 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) 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandal Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandal Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Spinning Spark  21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent article moves: no rationale given
Greetings. I wanted to ask about your rationale for several recent moves to pages (namely Norse architecture and Norse art), as you left no reasoning for the page moves nor initiated any discussion for such a move, nor any evidence of the prior names. It is customary prior to making any move that could possibly be considered controversial to raise the issue via a template message so that others may discuss the move, and even in those cases, leaving a rationale for the move. Morgan Riley (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vandal Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cartagena and Patrician (check to confirm | 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) 12:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suev* vs Sueb*
Why are you suppressing the spelling "Suevi" etc.? It is as common in English as the alternative. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Kingdom of the Burgundians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Honorius and Worms


 * Feletheus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Zeno

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556745058 your edit] to Cobandi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556745434 your edit] to Buri (Germanic tribe) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Be Bold but not Reckless
Read talk pages first. Talk:Anatolians_(Indo-European_people). Cavann (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Now you are being disruptive by creating a copy of Ancient Anatolians in List of ancient peoples of Anatolia Cavann (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Category Tags
Hi Krakkos - you seem to have spent a good portion of today removing category tags from a massive range of articles. While I applaud your diligence, I'm very unclear as to what your aim is, and as a result I'm tempted to start reverting your changes. Using Edit Summaries would perhaps make it clearer to the other users watching the pages you are editing as to what you are trying to accomplish. Gabhala (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with that per se, but you have been blazing a trail through literally dozens of articles, with no explanation of exactly what you're doing. That's bound to raise some hackles, or at the very least, eyebrows... Gabhala (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catualda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divide and conquer (check to confirm | 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) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:North Germanic peoples
Was there a discussion somewhere about emptying the category? I see you are moving all pages that had Category:North Germanic peoples to Category:North Germanic peoples... Howcome? — -dain  omite   20:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Heya, I saw your reply, I was just curious howcome you were merging them or if there was a discussion with other folks about it somewhere. Cheers, — -dain  omite   20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

infoboxes
Are you planning to transclude Template:Infobox Slavs anywhere else other than Slavs? If not, this is then improper. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Normans, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Goths, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567113017 your edit] to Julius Classicus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Germanic peoples redux
Howcome you are removing Category:North Germanic peoples, Category:East Germanic peoples, Category:West Germanic peoples from articles and changing the categories to be a soft redirect to Category:Germanic peoples? Maunus and I voiced our disagreement with you doing this before and now you are back at it again. Was there a discussion held somewhere to remove all these categories from these pages or are you doing it on your own volition? — -dain  omite   17:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed you have made a mess of many categories with no explanation or even a single edit summary. It's hard to AGF in this case. Your edits are disruptive, whether intentional or not, and I am tempted to report you to WP:ANI. Sweeping changes such as these should be discussed first and only enacted after a consensus has been reached. As it is, it will take quite an effort to reverse what you have done.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pan-Germanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian (check to confirm | 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) 09:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits on Latins
Hey Krakkos. I just wanted to give you a notification that I have reverted your blanking and redirect of Latins. At this point in that article's existence, given the amount of edit history in Latins, doing an edit such as blanking the page would be considered highly controversial. I would advise first either nominating Latins for articles for deletion, or starting a proposal to merge Latins into Latins (Italic tribe). Also, in the future, please try to avoid converting any article to a redirect without consensus. Latins had redirects that pointed to it, but because of the edit you performed that resulted in Latins redirecting to Latin (disambiguation), a bot performed automated edits to fix these redirects, which were then double redirects, and had them all point towards Latin (disambiguation). In most cases, the work that these bots do to remove double redirects is very helpful, but not in this case due to the redirects they edited ended up pointing to the wrong target as a result of your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598601516 your edit] to Middle Low German may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Low German provided a large number of loanwords to languages spoken around the Baltic Sea as a result of the activities of Hanseatic traders. It is considered the largest single source of

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Germanic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | 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) 09:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572927968 your edit] to Prekmurje Slovene may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572949108 your edit] to Vandals may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Vandals were a [Germanic peoples|East Germanic tribe] who in 429 under king Genseric entered Africa and by 439

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles that a glance at your talk page show other editors are likely to find objectionable. Enforcing a pause while this is discussed.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Spinning Spark  23:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the quality of this editor's edits but since when is "sweeping unexplained and undiscussed changes over numerous articles" a reason for a block? What happened to WP:BOLD? And for a freakin' week? This is some total bullshit here, unless I'm missing some AN/I discussion or something. (Given all that I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was a sock puppet or somethin').  Volunteer Marek  01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that since he was blocked for a week his recent contribs were akin to his German category edits but far worse. His previous mass edits which as you can read a few sections up almost resulted in User:WilliamThweatt going to WP:AN/I. — -dain  omite   01:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence for "far worse"? And "almost resulted in ... going to AN/I" is not the same as "consensus for a long block". It just means someone once made a threat, perhaps empty, of "going to AN/I". That's all. This looks like a textbook bogus block. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  01:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And speaking of AN/I, I'm perfectly open to an explanation here - maybe there was some kind of discussion or rationale that I'm missing. But a week block is pretty dang long. Especially for a user with a clean block log. So either you guys know something I don't, or this is total bullshit. And if no illumination with regard to the relevant discussion or rationale is forthcoming, then yeah... I'm going to AN/I. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  01:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did I ever say that there was evidence of anything, or that going to AN/I was the same as consensus for a long block? —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   02:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So no evidence, no AN/I discussion, no consensus and it's a long block - then you agree that this was an unwarranted block? <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if an AN/I discussion ever took place, you are free to search for one if you would like. —<font face=Verdana> -<font color=#FFF>dain  <font color=#000>omite   02:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The sequence of events leading to this block are as follows. Krakkos made this edit without leaving an edit summary. I undid the edit for the reason explained in my edit summary. Krakkos then immediately reapplied the edit, again without leaving a summary or otherwise explaining. I then noticed that the user was making similar edits on an industrial scale, all without edit summary. I then noticed that the user had warnings (including a final warning) on their page for edit warring and for repeatedly making large scale controversial changes to categories. The new edits seemed to be an extension of the category edits. This editor does not communicate in any way with other editors and responds to warnings by merely carrying on. The editing environment is poisoned for other editors by such behavious, and since it was large scale and currently ongoing I blocked to protect the encyclopaedia as administrators are supposed to do. The purpose of this block is to force Krakkos to discuss with others before continuing. The situation I could see was similar to an out of control bot, it is pointless talking to an entity that won't talk back, block is the only option. The length of the block is irrelevant here, as with a bot block, the block can be lifted as soon as the problem is fixed.  Spinning Spark  08:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is not leaving an edit summary a reason for a weeklong ban? Is reverting an editor once a reason for a weeklong ban? Regarding my unintentional revert at Vandals, i thought i had made a mistake while doing my original edit, not noticing later that you had previously reverted me. Last time i checked there were no separate rules between reverting a regular editor and an administrator. You present me as a rogue editor based upon a warning i recieved from User:Saddhiyama. This incident is yet another example of poor admin behaviour; on 2 August 2013, Saddhiyama accused me of "disruptive editing" for correcting an obvious WP:OC at Normans, then, two minutes later, he gives me a "final warning" for a harmless edit i made at Goths two months earlier in June 2013. Just like you used this unjustied final warning to block me, this unjustified block can be used in the future to discredit my edits. I admit that did i could have been more communicative regarding the Vandals dispute, but this block was unfair. Krakkos (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

howdy
Hello Krakkos, you can call me 74. Over at the West Germanic tribes page, you redirected to another article, citing a source that the topics were not the same. I reverted your redirect, and added some sources. But it looks like today, you are also redirectly most of the Italic articles. This does not seem right to me. Do you not think wikipedia should have articles on historical topics? Notability is not temporary, right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Howdy 74, i'm not quite sure what you mean. Did i do something wrong by redirecting Italic tribes to Italic peoples, just like Germanic tribes and Slavic tribes are redirected to Germanic peoples and Slavic peoples? What have i done to deserve being stalked by you and Yngvadottir? This is really frustrating :( Krakkos (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, I see several messages above about your converting articles into redirects without discussion, and changing links to efface the traces that they once existed as articles. You've been told before that this is not always going to meet with agreement and that you should therefore discuss such actions on article talkpages. In answer to your question, one of your delinkings brought your West Germanic tribes edit to my attention via my watchlist; which is the kind of thing we have watchlists for. I see that you cited a source in support of your repeat redirecting of that particular article, and that's good - but did it occur to you to check whether that is the dominant academic viewpoint (or basically to perform a WP:BEFORE check on the topic? Academics do sometimes disagree; and also it is possible to overgeneralize what they write in one particular publication. Please consider whether removing these articles - as opposed to tagging them as unsourced or preferably, looking for a source to add yourself - is helpful to the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel stalked, that is not my intent. But this is wikipedia, everybody has an edit-history, right?  It is there, so that people can look up what sort of work other editors are doing.  Getting other eyeballs to look at stuff, and mutually helping improve stuff, is the whole point of making it the 'pedia anyone can edit.
 * In this particular case, Yngvadottir had the west germanic tribes on their watchlist, and when you redirected that article, blanking all the content, Yngvadottir mentioned it to me, saying they didn't have time to work on it properly. I'm no expert, but a quick WP:GOOG turned up dozens of sources, so I added them.  I also added the source you found, into the article; it's an improvement, thanks for finding the Wolfram stuff.
 * Before posting a note here, I looked at your history, to see what kind of editing you like, and what kind of topics you work in. The recent Italic stuff, I brought up because it was different from the West Germanic tribes... you reworked the redirects, but no deletion was involved.  I don't know how those should be organized, speaking frankly.  :-)    Not my field.  It depends on what the WP:RS actually say, and also, since they are pure redirect, on what the readership comes looking for.  As editors, though, we should try not to impose structure, which is not reflected in the sources, or in readership-search-queries, methinks.  Consistency with other analogical topics, isn't as important as being consistent with sources, and with common keyword-patterns.
 * In the case of the Italic tribes thing, it looked like there was no content to speak of, at the moment. (Maybe there should be?  Again, I'm not an expert on that stuff.)  However, in the case of the West Germanic tribes, there *was* significant content; the tribes, as a political topic, are found in WP:RS which talk about kingships and such.  The article only had a few sentences of prose, true, but it also had a list of West Germanic tribes and sub-tribes.  You redirected to Germanic Peoples, which for instance mentioned the Chatti in a quote by Pliny the Elder, and also in the navbox, but doesn't say the Chatti were a West Germanic tribe.  There is also the List_of_Germanic_peoples article, linked at the bottom of the place you redirected to, which has the Chatti, but again doesn't give their geographic location.  Of course, there is also the West Germanic language article... which, as the first few paragraphs of Germanic Peoples explains, might not be identical with the tribes.
 * The point here, is that when you redirected West Germanic tribes, you effectively deleted information from mainspace. That's bad for the readership, right?  Not to mention, making more work for editors, who end up having to recreate that content later. Frustrating.  And because you didn't take the article to AfD, but simply overwrote the page with a redirect, the removal of content could easily have been missed; that somebody noticed it (Yngvadottir), was just luck.  The topic seems to pass WP:N with flying colors, even from a brief bit of WP:GOOG, so it frustrates me that you treated the West Germanic tribes prose-and-integrated-list, in almost the exact same way you treated the Ancient Italic tribes (which was already just a redirect, that you tweaked slightly).  Do you understand where I'm coming from here?
 * Anyhoo, I hope this better explains what I mean, as you asked. I understand your frustration at other people criticizing your editing; that is natural.  For what it is worth, I think your mainspace-edit to Bibliotheca historica was spot on, and your policy-edit to Germanic-speaking Europe clear & lucid.  You made some tiny spelling goofs in Herod_the_Great, but that's no prob, I do the same thing all the time (other editors in nearby paragraphs had more significant grammar-problems... I fixed it up a bit while I was there).  Over at Helveconae, you deleted a significant portion of the article; I'd rather you have copied it to the article-talkpage, but hey, the content *was* speculative (it said as much right when Botteville inserted that stuff back in 2005).  Maybe it can be sourced, maybe not; you are not WP:REQUIRED to find the sources, if you don't wish to.  So I'm not frustrated at that Helveconae deletion, it seemed justified, even if I think it could be done a bit differently.  Point being, you do good work, from what I can tell.  Thanks for that, it's appreciated.
 * But the redirect of West Germanic tribes, wiping the material in the process, seemed well across the line to me: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is policy.  Quite frustrating to see good information deleted, even if it is still technically in the history (somewheres).  If something is a BLP violation, or COPYVIO, or simply WP:NOT, then it needs to go, sure!  But none of those were the issue at West Germanic tribes; there were plenty of sources easily available... spanning a century just counting the online sources, and a couple millenia counting offline sources.  You even cited a source, to justify your deletion of the content, so it seemed clear that you weren't just deleting unthinkingly, or deleting by mistake.  But just because one source says $foo, doesn't mean that you should violate WP:PRESERVE on that basis, right?  I don't want to frustrate you, but I also don't want Yngvadottir tearing out their beard, either, if you know what I mean.  Does what I'm saying make sense?  Be bold, not reckless, as the old saying goes.  My goal is not to frustrate you, but to constructively point out a place where I think you made a mistake, and suggest that you use AfD next time, rather than wiping.  What if Fakirbakir had just overwritten Germanic-speaking Europe with a redirect, rather than taking it to AfD?  Hope this helps, sorry about the small novel.    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Sinope, Anaximenes, Turks, Milesian and Ararat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern Greek in articles about Ancient Greece
Hello, Krakkos. Please note that this edit was against policy. Having the Modern Greek term for an Ancient Greek topic is against WP:NOTDICT. Articles about Ancient Greece should not contain translations of terms to modern languages; only the Ancient Greek etymologies of the English word for the topic. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626257755 your edit] to Running amok may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * death. This form of amok appears to resemble the Germanic berserker, the cafard or cathard (Polynesia), mal de pelea (Puerto Rico), iich'aa (Navaho), Laos, and Papua

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Haras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordoba. 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) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Al-Hakam I
 * added a link pointing to Al-Hakam


 * Proto-Indo-Europeans
 * added a link pointing to Japanese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

sfn
Hi Krakkos. Thanks for your edits on Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. Did you ever try WP:SFN? It's even shorter than harvnb? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Alans
 * added links pointing to Valence and Antiquity


 * Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis
 * added a link pointing to Antiquity


 * Indo-Aryan peoples
 * added a link pointing to Antiquity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don river. 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) 09:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandals in the 1930s
Are you planning on fixing this problem your recent editing has caused? If not, your edits will have to be reverted. Such gross errors cannot be allowed to stand in the encyclopaedia. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, honest mistake. I've fixed it now. Thanks for notifying me. Krakkos (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Indo-European MIgrations
Thanks for your additions! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification
This IP has started a thread in WP:ANI about you. I pointed out his rather obvious Tirgil34 connection. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wusun
The past few days have seen massive WP:Edit warring at the Wusun page. None of the parties have even attempted to discuss their differences at the talk page or to reach consensus. Edit warring is against Wikipedia policy and can result in the warring editors to be blocked from editing at Wikipedia. If you have a disagreement with another editor, you must NOT keep reverting each other. You must come to the talk page and work out your differences in a civil manner.

Also, you must not accuse each other of sockpuppetry at the talk page, or in edit summaries. That amounts to a personal attack. Allegations of sockpuppetry may only be made at WP:SPI. I have locked (fully protected) the page for 24 hours. I have also reverted it to the last stable version before the edit warring began. The purpose of the full protection is twofold: to stop the edit warring, and to get the warring parties to come to the talk page with their differences. If edit warring resumes, I or other administrators will lock it again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. I have responded to the issue in question at the talk page of Wusun. Krakkos (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Krakkos, why don't you take this issue to WP:FT/N? That's the most proper venue for a problem like this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, these accounts and ips that i have demonstrated before are also socks. l have no time to report them. You can show them with diffs if you want.
 * Note: Blocking the accounts only doesnt work as we see for years. Range blocks for ips and proxies also needed. Additionally, this account also suspicious (added the same content and source, but different article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.161.254 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Damaged articles by that Turanist socks
Look for this "In Search of the Lost Tribe" in these articles. That's a book by a fringe-supporter non-notable author: I guess he did this to promote that unreliable book for his future edits on main articles. --188.159.134.54 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Demographic history of Syrmia
 * Bulgars
 * Yurmat
 * Kutrigurs
 * Siraces (again, Turkifying)
 * Jazig
 * Utigurs
 * Sir (people) (a short article with 2 unreliable cited materials)
 * Giazi (similar to above)
 * Jasz people (hardcore passage/paragraph to deny Iranic origin of Alans, obviously biased content and Turkicness pov-pushing)

Why I haven't commented
Since I became an arbitrator, I am getting less involved in disputes at ANI etc so that if they come to ArbCom I don't have to remove myself from a case as being involved. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, i understand. Sorry if i have bothered you then, but i've been addressing you about this as you seem to be one of the few administrators who has made an effort to deal with this problem. Thanks for explaining. Krakkos (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proto-Turkic language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatalized. 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) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply: ANI discussion
Hi. I saw your ANI report, and I think it's well-written with good rationale. However, I can't write my opinion, because I didn't deal with that guy for several months. Because of that, I'm not familiar with his current activities and his sock puppeteer friend(s). Also, I reported him in the beginning of his edits and admins just blocked him for 24 hours. His edits are obviously disruptive (Andronovo culture is a good case, please see the revision history), and I don't know why admins ignore him easily. I can help you in the other ways if you're interested. You can give me a list of articles that you think they're targeted by disruptive actions. I'll watch them and I can submit relevant reports in the future. Please remember: You're the main editor who found these disruptive activities, so you should be an active user in Wikipedia to be able to solve this problem. In my experience, most POV-pushers won't stop their actions until admins either protect targeted articles or watch them. Your case needs admins' help/attention too, because we're regular editors and we're not able to deal with all of those problems, specially when WP:DUCK happens. So what do you think? Any solution? --Zyma (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the article Long-term abuse/Tirgil34, i have created a list of articles that he tend to edit. If you would like to help i reccommend adding these articles to your watchlist. If you find anything suspicious you could update the long-term abuse article, file a report on Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 and request administrator action. Thank your for your concern. Krakkos (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, good work. I'll try to watch them (specially the vital/important ones). My suggestion: You can clean up and create socks-free/neutral revisions of those articles. It's not necessary to remove all of his edits if you think some of them are good (it depends on you to let them or not). I saw you did this on some of those articles. I know it's not easy, but it makes other editors' watch and patrolling work much easier if new socks/DUCKs return and try to restore socks' contributions. Also, your edit summaries are an important part, because detailed edit summaries are very useful in the diffs and searches. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of CSD G5
I declined your speedy request of, since it had a large number of edits by others. I also noticed that you have been referencing CSD G5 in the edit summaries of reverts; do note that CSD criteria have no relevance outside the speedy (article) deletion process. L Faraone  01:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay . I also noticed that the article had a substantial number of edits by others. But after looking at diffs from users that are not socks of, i reached the conclusion that the content of these edits were not substantial. Here are the diffs from non-Tirgil34 users. Regarding the other issue, it seemed logical to me that if entire articles created by socks are eligible for removal, then edits should apply as well. The WP:G5 section also mention edits at one point, so perhaps i misinterpreted. I'm not gonna argue here, just trying to explain. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of Tirgil34
Is true I edit in mostly Turkic pages ( and sometimes other ) but I have nothing to do with Tirgil34. WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Are you retard? How the hell did you write me down as a sockpuppet. Have you looked at my contribs or accomplishments? kazekagetr 13:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

oh now i get it, you are greek right. i cooperate with armenians and greeks on turkey/turkish related issues cause i am georgian, not turkish. but accusing me as a sockpuppet wihout any solid evidence, this makes me crazy. kazekagetr 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will revoke my nomination of you as a sockpuppet of . You can read a detailed response at the SPI in question. Krakkos (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Accusation
Hi Krakkos. You have mentioned me in spi. lf you check my edits, you can understand that i am not tirgil34. l edited Wusun in the past. Differing from Tirgil34's, my additions were the sources that support the indo-european identity of Wusun. Please check my edits before accusation. Regards. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * l have just saw the ANl report that was opened by Tirgil34 last week while i was looking at your last contributions in order to understand what's going on. Tirgil34 claimed that, user Zyma, Ergative rtl, Rajmaan...and my account are your sock accounts. Now, you have mentioned me on SPI and claimed that i am sock of him. lt is ridiculous. Can you please take a look at the history of Wusun? l have NO edits about Turkic theory. And even there is no edit by me about Turkic-related articles. You should check the contributions well before such accusations. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

hallo!
Dear Krakkos, unlike yourself I have no agendas, I only strive for the truth and objectivity.

It was very lowly from you to mention me as a sockpuppet of somebody you do not like. I never heard of this person and have nothing to do with him.

You are evidently pushing an agenda and consequently you attack as a sockpuppet anybody that holds different views from yours, and this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34: His Basement
I googled some IE/Central Asian/Turanist revisionists and pseudo-science topics and I find something that will interest you. This needs serious attention by admins. Tirgil34 is an active member of The Apricity Forum. His main user name/account is Kipchak Håkan (just like Wikipedia, he has multiple accounts on there too). He refers/links to his WP edits/revisions on forum's posts/threads. It looks like that he and his friends cooperate to attack Wikipedia from there, because their posts are similar to disruptive edits on targeted articles. I think that forum is a basement for him and his meta-puppets. You can easily find the connection between those Apricity's accounts and Tirgil34's activity on WP. It's more than just a regular sock puppetry and fringe POV-pushing. See his profile info and posts. That guys is a perfect anti-European troll and ultra Turkish nationalist with a Turanist mind. My point: It's important to tell admins about this issue. Also, is there anyway to add this to that Long-Term abuse? --Zyma (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice research, very interesting. I strongly reccommend that you add this information to Long-term abuse/Tirgil34, perhaps the Other notes section. How do you plan on addressing the admins about this issue? Krakkos (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After doing some research on my own here, i find that you are definately correct. For example check out this post on 24 June 2014 by Kipchak Håkan, where he refers to a 23 June edit by Tirgil34 sock.
 * I don't know how to report this, plus if you read and review his posts on that forum, you'll find more horrible things (looks like new and future-planned attacks). This is the reason why I call his behavior is something more than just a simple edit-warring or POV-pushing. It looks like an organized job, non-stop, and a systematic attempt to insert Turanist fringe contents on WP. I suggest to mention this stuff on the talk page section + direct report to some admins (provide WP diffs and related posts on Apricity Forum. Please ask admins about this, because I'm not familiar with this policy (disruptive edits that established and launched from 3rd-party websites). Despite his fringe povs, I think his forum-friends act as meta-puppets, anonymous editors (IPs), and IP-hopping editors. Read talk pages, you'll see their BS everywhere, just like those cheap posts on that forum. Do more searches and tell admins about this. Good luck. --Zyma (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, i'll see what i can do. I have also discovered that Tirgil34 has also been very active at Wiktionary and Commons, so it seems like this problem extends beyond Wikipedia towards the entire Wikimedia Foundation. Krakkos (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those edits are just for block/SPI evasion. He uses different personalities for each of his socks. This is popular among most sock puppeteers, because I submit some SPI cases and I'm familiar with them. As I said before, his behavior/activity is beyond our user rights and admins should decide about him if this (WP) is a real encyclopedia. I don't care about his edits and dream (everything is Turkic!) if he behave like a normal editor and stop his sock puppetry (I guess he started from 2009 or 2010), but it looks like sock puppetry and puppetry is a natural part of him. The real problem is: He adds a lot of unreliable or misrepresented sources to push fringe theories and weaken scholary/most-accepted views by experts. Cheating in edit summaries, manipulating referenced texts/contents, aggressive attacks against other editors, and etc. Some of his sources are not problematic, but the way he adds and presents them on articles is awful/disruptive. Don't expect anything from someone who thinks Ancient Near Easterns and Indo-Europeans were his dreamy 100% Turanid Turkic group, and Turks are the source for every ancient thing in this world! Did you read his claims on that forum? In his mind, all Central Asia regions and half of Europe were fully Turkic, then racist scientist ignored this fact, because they are Anti-Turk! A perfect example of pseudo-science + pan-nationalism. Best regards, bye. --Zyma (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , could user Temple of Time at Historum be the same as Kipchak Håkan/Tirgil34? Krakkos (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, it's possible. Every time he makes a change on WP articles, his edits appear on these history forum, and they know the revision history of those articles. That guy with "Black Panther" avatar is an interesting one! I mentioned The Apricity as an example (they manipulate articles and refer to manipulated articles because WP has its own reputation). There is no need to find this troll outside of WP. As I said above, this case is beyond regular users and needs serious attention by admins if they think WP is a reliable encyclopedia based on academic/expert sources. Off-topic, helpful for your future edits: The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives --Zyma (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * wait are you accusing me because i am also in apricity?   kazekagetr  17:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An IP has just made the claim that the Youtube account ✣ Tengri • Spirit of the Steppe ✣ belong to Tirgil34. At first i was suspiscious, although the youtube account make similar claims to Tirgil34, claiming everything as Turkic, the existence of a "turanid race" and so on. I found something interesting however. See the text below this video. That text refers to on wiktionary which was added by Tirgil34 sock . Tirgil34's account at TheApricity Kipchak Håkan has posted the exact same material as the youtube account at the forum. I've also another interesting fact. Compare this post by TheApricity user SkyEarth about "evil Turco-Mongol women raped Iranic Scythian men and created modern Turkic peoples" with the post by confirmed Tirgil34 sock at Talk:Scythian languages. I suspect Tirgil34/Kipchak Håkan has many "sockpuppets" on the TheApricity and other places. Krakkos (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, did you see my edit or not? You should read it. Second, Just like many internet forums, The Apricity is full of trolls and users with multiple accounts. You can't easily judge about them. The only obvious thing is that forum is one of the sources for their attacks. Maybe, they copy and paste every trollish stuff from there on WP talk pages. I mean the X user posted something, and Tirgil34 or his friends used it on WP. I saw many comments on WP talk pages that match with The Apricity's posts. As I wrote before, this case needs admins' attention, a serious attention. It seems that troll/sock master guy gains profits/money for his contents on web, because even most active WP editors don't spent a large amount of time like him. You should focus on WP articles if you want to fight with his disruption. Because what he does on X forum/website is not critical. His edits and his pseudo-scientific mind are not important for me, because there are many other editors who are able to solve his problematic edits. The important things is: If WP will fail to stop him/similar behaviors, there is no future for this encyclopedia. When someone uses tons of accounts like him, and we are not able to stop that person, then we can't call this project an encyclopedia anymore. In that situation, this project will become another cheap grade forum just like The Apricity. --Zyma (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's funny he has account on gaming forums too. See this account, same posts, same claims. Linked to his The Apricity posts! Looks like a harcore-type quest. --Zyma (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny indeed. I've added this to the LTA as well. Krakkos (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If my source is poorly sourced than so is yours !!!!
Firstable, I admit "Spiritclaymore" was a sockpuppet of my account. It is now banned account because I was punished, I was also temporary banned from editing. Now I only have 1 account, so I'm given a second chance.

If you zoom or look properly, you can see it referenced Rudenko quote on " G. F. Debets on the physical characteristics of the population in the Pazyryk kurgans"'''

https://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=rLbjVM6gFcjEPKOrgLgP&id=KlMhAQAAMAAJ&dq=Debets+on+the+physical+characteristics+of+the+population+in+the+Pazyryk+kurgans%2C+records+a+mixed+population.+The+men+would+seem+to+be+part+Mongoloid+and+the+women+Europoid&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=mongoloid

so please do not cherry pick data and claim this poorly source. YOUR SOURCE AND MINE ARE FROM THE SAME PERSON There are numerous sources of Rudenko that mentions the male and female population of Pazyryk people but you choose not to edit it so I did.

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reported WCF at ANI for continued plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proxy ips that are abused by Tirgil34
...
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section
 * using by the sock who was mentioned above/previous section

These proxies are generally from US, Japan, etc and are statics just like many other proxies. As i told before, banning sock accounts alone doesn't work so much. He just create new ones. Block for proxies and range block for his real IPs also necessary.

Note: He has an account on YouTube: Spirit of the steppe 176.219.166.35 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've checked the LTA, I would recommend Krakkos to add any of the IPs that were blocked as his socks to that LTA page. Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * lf l were you, i'd added these ips listed above for SPl instead of mine or at least in addition to mine.You are confused but no matter. l can understand it and i will keep reporting this internet addicted sockmaster's news socks here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.164.221 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it started again
See Bashkirs, Andronovo culture, Turan, and Persian mythology. --Zyma (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. edits to Andronovo culture are very similar to . I think it's time for another SPI. Regarding the edits to Turan and Persian mythology, i suppose you are refering to those of  and . I you could provide relevant diffs i would be happy to add those users to a future SPI. Krakkos (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See and . His typical behavior. --Zyma (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i found something interesting. It seems like this blog (identical to turkicworld.org) is another basement for User:Tirgil34. See this "Wikipedia" section of the blog, which saves articles created by Barefact deleted by "Iranian supremacists". Here Tirgil34's likey account at TheApricity Kipchak Håkan refers to the same material as that mentioned on the blog. In a video section the blog refers to Youtube videos created by Tirgil34's likely Youtube account ✣ Tengri • Spirit of the Steppe ✣ Barefact seems to have a close relation to many Tirgil34 socks. Also compare this post by Barefact to this post by Tirgil34 IPv6 sock. Also see this. What do you think? Krakkos (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They're same person. Multiple account and each account have its own personality. Typical pov-pusher/troll behavior. Sometimes they work as a team, because their IPs are from various locations, e.g. Germany, Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, and etc. They're members of various Anthroboards. I think their current victims are Indo-Iranian/Persian-related articles, but according to their anti-European goal, if they manage to manipulate current targets successfully, their next targets are European-related articles. They follow a Sun Language Theory-like model. Pseudo-science, false etymology, funny conclusions about DNA results, taxonomy/racial claims, rejecting accepted sources, using dubious and outdated sources; and finally if all of those attempts failed, they will try various revisionist methods. For example, they hide their desired contents into some parts of targeted article and those contents are complete biased materials which do not match with the main weight of article (see this). Did you see that guy's conclusions? I saw horrible comparisons of ethnic groups done by him. Rejects mixed origins, Turkification (or other assimilation forms), and then when others mention other facts, he creates Turkic stories for those facts. As I said before, it looks like this "internet quest" is his primary job. Just go to his den (The Apricity), review his posts, google some of his posts and you will see that he is active on almost every related forum or websites. In his poisoned mind, every thing is eurocentrist and anti-Turk. Also, I don't know why he wants to create this "White Turanid" version of history. Because his ethnic group (Turkish) is not similar to Central Asians? His anti-Iranian propaganda amazes me. He denies almost all of Persian culture and history, and created his Turkic version for them! What do you think about him? --Zyma (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=664546665 your edit] to Kushan Empire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Britannica Online]] |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. |access-date=29 May 2015 |quote= }}  "They are, by almost unanimous

My suggestion
Hi. I saw your SPI was closed without result. My suggestion: Your spi cases are too long and have many related and unrelated reported users. It's better to write short, direct and clean evidences. Also only report active and most suspected ones. I've reviewed Tirgil34 case archive, then I've found this report as a good example. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zyma. You are right. The previous investigation got completely out of hand. I have conferred with admins, and will refile the Tirgil34 SPI in a more effective way when i have time. Krakkos (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The earlier report you're linking to was indeed successful. It was initially endorsed by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, who checked one of them and then endorsed all the others. Which users who conduct the reviews and checks seems to be critical for the outcome of sockpuppetry investigations. Krakkos (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at this editor. Similar case. --Zyma (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. PavelStaykov edits the Bulgarian Wikipedia, where he is blocked. Tirgil34 speaks German and Turkish, i doubt he knowns Bulgarian. Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's not related but did you see what he spams on articles and talk pages? That "s155239215.onlinehome.us" (home of Tirgil and his friends). --Zyma (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, this is Barefact's personal website for fringe theory promotion. Barefact is a Bashkir from Russia so i'm not sure if PavelStyakov is related to him either. It could be a coincidence that PavelStyakov is citing him, but i'm not sure. PavelStyakov is still a disruptive editor who treats the talk pages as a personal forum, edit wars and cites unreliable sources. Perhaps admins should be notified about his behaviour. On a side note i would like to ask you a question. Last year Tirgil34 sock Greentent and IP's starting with 149.140... and 176.219... were targeting Karasuk culture and talking with Greentent. The IP's belong to Vodafone Turkey and locate to Maslak, Istanbul. Do you think these IP's belong to Tirgil34, or is someone else behind them? Are the IP's the same person or two. Who could they be? The same 176.219... and 149.140... IP's are also accusing others of being Tirgil34 socks. Also, Madyas is definately a sock of another turanist sockmaster EMr KnG. Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Avars and Iranian people
Hi, I saw your recent positive edits on Pannonian Avars (and Avar Khaganate), and Iranian peoples. However, as am working on the Pannonian Avars article the inclusion of Altaic-Turkic or Indo-European tribes among Iranian peoples according linguistic influence (not ethnogenetic and cultural), which are also really minor scholar considerations, insufficient for such claims and inclusion (per WP:NPOV). Of all sources about Turkic peoples which found until now, personally consider the best (also as a criterion), with quite neutral and serious POV and research, the book by Peter Benjamin Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (1992). In the section "European Avars" is clearly stated, besides their possible heterogeneity which was common in steppe nomadic confederation, the unambiguous anthropological and linguistic (personal names, military titles) evidence they were of Mongoloid or Altaic-Turkic origin, at least the ruling elite caste. In conclusion, there is some scholars debate about the Pannonian Avars heterogeneity, but generally is considered that at least the ruling elite, which we consider as Avars, was of Altaic-Turkic origin. Think that the previous revision of the Avar Khaganate introduction "It was a confederacy ruled by a group of medieval equestrian warrior nomads of Altaic-[4]Turkic[5][6] extraction known as Avars or Pseudo-Avars, and which included Slavs and other Pontic–Caspian steppe tribes." somewhat most accurate and neutral. --Crovata (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, i've seen your positive edits at various Wikipedia articles too. The edit about Altaic origins was probably added by an IP sock of Tirgil34, see WP:Tirgil34 and Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 BöriShad section. Sock's edits should be removed as per WP:EVASION and WP:G5. The Altaic languages is also according to Wikipedia "widely discredited". It does not belong to the lead at Avars as Tirgil34 inserted it. As explained in the sources, the origins of the Avars is uncertain, some view them as descended from the Rouran (probably Monglic) or the Hephthalites (probably Iranian), and there are many theories on their linguistic affiliation. There is an whole army of turanist sockmasters adding "Turkic" to the first sentence of every article about Central Asia. This is a major problem. Since there are various theories and there is no consensus, each of them should be given due weight. Krakkos (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after being for some time an editor of Wikipedia was quite surprised of the amount of suspicious activity. Those two or three sources (4, 5, 6) weren't quite the most notable and reliable. The Altaic-Turkic is often used as a broader term in ethnogenetic sense, not just linguistic, meaning Mongol-Turkic. The Rouran or Hephthalites, and other geographic and time ancestry is indeed scholars speculation, very uncertain and hardly more than that. However, as already said, at least there is some consensus, ie. the most prevailing consideration is the Altaic-Turkic extraction (not exclusive and only ethnogenetic, but at least the most prominent cultural origin) of the European Avars elite caste in Pannonia. Think that the turanist activity shouldn't be taken as reason for not using that term in the introduction. Whether could be somehow mentioned in the intro both the uncertainity and the specific extraction?
 * For example, the article on Bulgars, the same period nomadic tribes of similar culture, points out the Turkic exctraction of the tribes (due to linguistic, cultural and politic-structural traits), but in the "Ethnicity" section is explained the complexitiy of ethnogenesis of those tribal confederations due to the often public misunderstanding (that it means Mongoloids) of the ethnogenesis meaning of the term "Turks". While among the Bulgars and their graves is low percent of Mongoloid anthropological types, it seems that among Pannonian Avars was in much higher percent and that explains the Altaic-Turkic cultural traits (for example the different titles from the Bulgars, except khan or qhagan). Similarly would do with the article on Pannonian Avars as already has that emphasize. Sorry for a long reply, but it's nice to see from time to time polite and constructive discussion, both for Wikipedia and personal knowledge.--Crovata (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, finally a constructive discussion. Seems to be rare these days... I added a citation from Christopher I. Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road to the Pannonian Avars article. I you're interested in Central Eurasian history this is a very useful book, which can be accessed by free license here. I wish you good luck with your work on Pannonian Avars and other articles. Krakkos (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take it into consideration, and good luck as well. When will finish it gladly review it (ps. and its grammar as am not native English speaker and sometime make few mistakes).--Crovata (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
This user seems suspicious/her various edits on Bulgars and other various articles. He/she embodied Turkicness of various people and deleted lranian theories by labelling them as "politically motivated". But interestingligy, he/she added informations from well-known Turkish nationalists (e.g. Osman Karatay) that are " politically motivated". There is an inconsistency here. Also his targeted articles shows almost a perfect paralellity with Tirgil34's. Karatay was Tirgil34's favourite scholar(!) and plus, the user is also actively using Russian sources for his pro-Turkic edits-just like Tirgil34. And finally, a Crovatian who bothered the word "lranic" and favours instead "Turkic". Another Bjorn Lenes? OssetianRealm? or Pan-Turkist " German"? l am not sure but there is something "weird" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.216.34.145 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, I removed "<" from the second reply in "Overcitation" discussion and edited statement as "ref name=..." as this discussion, and previous as well, didn't show normally. This IP user false accusations, and tracking of my contributions, are seemingly related to the User PavelStaykov who previously vandalized Bulgars article, and most recently of the Dulo clan, where showed clear disregard of Turkic origin of the Bulgars (considering it a part of some Soviets propaganda, it's a long story...), and the imposing of his own personal POV and OR. You can freely consider his comment as vandalism of your personal talk page and remove it.--Crovata (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * lf accusing someone for socking is "vandalism", then you did it too-but yours funny. The point has nothing to do with " disregarding", the point is a Croatian user who interested in specific Turkic related articles with the ips from Germany after the most socks of Tirgil34 were blocked. And than, deleting sources that mentioned iranian theories by labelling them nationalists-as Tirgil did many times before and adding pro-Turkic ones that are written by dubious authors such as Osman Karatay-neither famous nor reliable Turkish nationalist whose sources were used by Tirgil34 socks (see the history of Bulgars and similar articles). According to me, the notorious sock master tries to play good police-bad police. User Krakkos will decide about you, do not panic.
 * Just...? You failed on so many levels is indeed funny, or not, as am accused for pure vague lies. A simple search of my contributions, specific interest, language and date, disapprove your accusations. Yes, Krakkos will decide how to deal with you, and it's just incredible how the more we work, and do good work, do more stumble upon editors with symptomatic behaviour. Note that the typical trait of User PavelStaykov was his lack of signature use at the end of replies since his account creation. Maybe I am wrong to relate it with the specific user, is this IP user language resembling someone?--Crovata (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahah..."Lack of signature"...Excellent finding Holmes! Plus your last contributions and efforts after accusation have made you more suspicious-e.g.discrediting Karatay after accusatinos. l don't expect you to admit of being sockpuppet and your conterattack clearly shows your iq level. Thus i dont wanna keep replying to you. l have informent Krakkos and he is free to take into my arguments consideration or not. End of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.164.84 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Overcitation
Regarding your recent edits in Wusun, please note the Wikipedia guidelines on citation per WP:OVERCITE. Too many cites in a single sentence makes an article hard to read, and the lede of the Wusun article falls into the extreme end of overcitation. There is really no need to give excessive number of cites when a few well-chosen ones would do, for example, by particularly noted scholars in the field, or from a noted publication. I understand that sometimes people demand sources for a particularly contentious viewpoint, in which case the cites can be bundled into a single one. Also, the lede is just a summary of the main text, and as such most the citations can go into the body of the main text rather than in the lede. Hzh (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i became aware of this after your recent improvement at Wusun. Nice work. As you're probably aware of i expanded the article quite significantly yesterday. There is indeed a large number of citations on ethnolinguistic affiliation. WP:OVERCITE however instructs us to leave out medium-quality sources in favor of high-quality sources. The sources used are all of high quality, and deciding which to leave out was difficult. The David Durand-Guédy, Joseph Kitagawa (religious scholar), and Encyclopedia Britannica sources are perhaps of lower quality than the rest. Regarding the insertion of sources in the lead i agree with you, but there has been persistent sockpuppetry by Tirgil34 on Wusun for many years, who fraudulently removes facts from the intro as "unsourced". I felt compelled to add the sources to the intro to make things clear. The sources are however all in the "ref name=..." format, so that removing them won't be of impact the sourcing in the body. Krakkos (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding lots of sources would help, it in fact made it look like a contested fact (we often see huge number of cites after edit warring, people trying to shore up their argument with large number of cites). As far as Wusun is concerned, I don't think there are many people who would claim that the Wusun did not have a significant Indo-European component, even if their actual ethnic origin is still something debatable (this is noted in the UNESCO book, among others). When there are multiple sources, you would really only need to use acknowledged leaders in the field such as Pulleyblank, Golden, Sinor, Mallory, Mair, etc.  For example, you added a source citing Sino-Platonic Papers in the lead, while that isn't a bad journal, it is not among the best (because the policy of the journal is to encourage people who are not well-established in field to contribute).  It can certainly be used as a source, but when there are better sources, it is also an unnecessary one.  The edit you cited was trying to push a point of view (admittedly a view held by some scholars), but what we try to do is to give a balanced view, and that edit can be reverted for simply doing that.  I would also not use the online Encyclopedia Britannica because it seems to be adopting the Wikipedia practice of using contribution from the public, I have seen articles where the content changes every time I checked. The information that you think is there might not be there next time someone else looks at it, which makes citing it problematic.  In any case, thanks for the good work. Hzh (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed all citations from the lead of Wusun. If you deem it necessary to remove additional redundant citations from the body of the article then feel free to do it. I won't object. I'm inclined to propose Wusun for good article nomination. Do you have any other recommendations on how to improve the article? Also, your opinion on Articles for deletion/Uysyn could be useful. Krakkos (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the article is quite ready for nomination for good article yet, but the best way to gauge is to start a peer review process first here at Peer review and invite people from WikiProject Central Asia and WikiProject China to comment. Personally I feel the article still looks messy, and may need better organisation (for example I think the History section would be easier to read if separated into a few sub-sections, but I'm not really quite sure how to do it). Someone is going to complain that the lead is now too small and does not summarize the article.  As for the Uysyn article, I think it needs to be completely rewritten rather than deleted.  Hzh (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, i've done as you recommended point for point by splitting the history section, expanding the lead, creating a peer review and notifying WikiProject Central Asia and WikiProject China. If you have any further recommendations please share them! Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Desperate vandal is still active
This user is new sock of Tirgil34. This time, he represents himself as Kurdish (remember in the past he behave as if he was Hungarian, German, even Ossetian). Just like Mirliebeip and Kleropides, he try to de-lranification Kurds. Of course there are Kurds with the same agenda but these Kurdish nationalists never make such contributions: 1 2 Also he knows Turkish. Same manner, same talking style. See this.

Additionally, he OUTLlNED his Kurdish identity in his user page. (Similar to Radosfrester, Tirgil34,...). Remember Mirliebeip also made the similar thing. Other socks:
 *  -A proxy-not surprisingly. Similar edits...Also denied the Armenian Genocide. The last contributions regarding "Dulo clan" and "Bulgarians" are also interesting-i think you get the message.
 * -might be.
 * -another proxy again.
 * - Obviously the same edits plus the account edited articles such as Cevat Yerli who is not much known among Turks except Turks of Germany. Further, the account tries to cooperate users who have similar ideology with him such as banned user Madyas. Remember, Tirgil34 did the same thing before. (Check the Hirabutor's contributions). Also he said that, they want to create a "Turkish" group in order to edit en.wikipedia and asked the Madyas if he want to join them (Translated from Turkish)
 * -active in Turkish wikipedia. See his edits there.
 * - active in Turkish wikipedia
 * - active in en.wikipedia. this account's edits, even edit summaries are extremely similar to Bılgamış's.
 * -active in Turkish wikipedia. See his edits there.
 * - active in Turkish wikipedia
 * - active in en.wikipedia. this account's edits, even edit summaries are extremely similar to Bılgamış's.

Also see the history of Turan to see other socks.
 * Note: User Barefact(Tirgil?) is not a Bashkir as you thought. He represented himself as an Azeri, see his contributions. But it is also may not be accurate. According to me, he is neither Bashkir, nor Azeri or Turk from Checenya(as Kipcak Hakan represent himself). He is just a Turkish whose grandfathers immigrated Germany from Turkey as work forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.161.43 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well....
I will probably get blocked for it! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one Kansas Bear. As a bulwark against turanist fringe theories you're one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. Juding by the moronic behaviour of Qara xan, i'm quite certain he will return as a sock. The number of turanist sockmasters is growing by the day, so identifying which sock belongs to which master is getting difficult. Be sure to notify me if you notice anything suspicious. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

possible socks
protect Talk:Bulgars Talk:Huns Talk:Dulo_clan Talk:First_Bulgarian_Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.174.133.190 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it started again
See Bashkirs, Andronovo culture, Turan, and Persian mythology. --Zyma (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. edits to Andronovo culture are very similar to . I think it's time for another SPI. Regarding the edits to Turan and Persian mythology, i suppose you are refering to those of  and . I you could provide relevant diffs i would be happy to add those users to a future SPI. Krakkos (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See and . His typical behavior. --Zyma (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i found something interesting. It seems like this blog (identical to turkicworld.org) is another basement for User:Tirgil34. See this "Wikipedia" section of the blog, which saves articles created by Barefact deleted by "Iranian supremacists". Here Tirgil34's likey account at TheApricity Kipchak Håkan refers to the same material as that mentioned on the blog. In a video section the blog refers to Youtube videos created by Tirgil34's likely Youtube account ✣ Tengri • Spirit of the Steppe ✣ Barefact seems to have a close relation to many Tirgil34 socks. Also compare this post by Barefact to this post by Tirgil34 IPv6 sock. Also see this. What do you think? Krakkos (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They're same person. Multiple account and each account have its own personality. Typical pov-pusher/troll behavior. Sometimes they work as a team, because their IPs are from various locations, e.g. Germany, Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, and etc. They're members of various Anthroboards. I think their current victims are Indo-Iranian/Persian-related articles, but according to their anti-European goal, if they manage to manipulate current targets successfully, their next targets are European-related articles. They follow a Sun Language Theory-like model. Pseudo-science, false etymology, funny conclusions about DNA results, taxonomy/racial claims, rejecting accepted sources, using dubious and outdated sources; and finally if all of those attempts failed, they will try various revisionist methods. For example, they hide their desired contents into some parts of targeted article and those contents are complete biased materials which do not match with the main weight of article (see this). Did you see that guy's conclusions? I saw horrible comparisons of ethnic groups done by him. Rejects mixed origins, Turkification (or other assimilation forms), and then when others mention other facts, he creates Turkic stories for those facts. As I said before, it looks like this "internet quest" is his primary job. Just go to his den (The Apricity), review his posts, google some of his posts and you will see that he is active on almost every related forum or websites. In his poisoned mind, every thing is eurocentrist and anti-Turk. Also, I don't know why he wants to create this "White Turanid" version of history. Because his ethnic group (Turkish) is not similar to Central Asians? His anti-Iranian propaganda amazes me. He denies almost all of Persian culture and history, and created his Turkic version for them! What do you think about him? --Zyma (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quite unsure. Barefact started editing several years before Tirgil34 appeared, and he's sophisticated and has appearently not been socking, while Tirgil34 when he joined in 2011 seemed inexperienced. Barefact also does not appear to speak German. If you look at Tirgil34's user page on Turkish WP, he claims to speak English, German, Turkish, Russian and Tatar. On his German WP user page he claims to be living near Mettmann and to be from Kazan (Tatar capital). It is true that Tirgil34 lives near Mettmann. If he is honest about where he lives then why would he lie about being Tatar from Kazan? It doesn't make sense. On the other hand Tirgil34 has not made any edits on WP which indicates that he speaks Russian or Tatar. Interestingly, the first video by the Youtube account is a folksong in Tatar, and the person behind the account also speaks German. It's probably Tirgil34, perhaps Barefact or they are working together. Here he reveals his birthday. I agree that his anti-Iranian agenda is amazing. The fact that Iranian peoples orginally lived in Central Asia and developed equestrian nomadism, which was copied by other peoples later, is problematic for turanists. It's similar to Indian nationalist denial of Indo-Aryan migration through Indigenous Aryans theory. Turks are a mix of various peoples and there is a problem with identify crisis, causing many to fabricrate history to promote glorious origins (like Sun Language theory), and this has support from powerful circles. His "White Turanid" theory also seems strange. He may be a Tatar, and some Tatars look "White", i. e. Rinat Akhmetov. This could be a motivation. See his "ancestry" at TheApricity: "Turanian or Scythian = Ural-Altaic, the only true Aryans :P." At any rate, we have two users, Barefact and Tirgil34, who are closely connected through WP, TheApriticy, Youtube and the TurkicWorld website, and they are probably meat socks of each other. This is a major threat to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Long-term Abuse: Details
Hi Krakkos. Let's discuss that issue on this section. I think it's not limited to two persons, and just caused by identity crisis. It's more than a simple case. They are very active on almost every historical sites/blogs, human biodiversity forums (anthro boards), and internet hate sites. Recently, I found these cases (not on WP): read the comments section,, this one is very important. On Wikipedia, their anti-Iranian, anti-Iranic and anti-Persian quest is not limited to specific Iranian ethnic groups, but it includes all of them. For example, Tirgil34 started several Pashtun-related threads on The Apricity (an example), and then targeted Pashtun-related articles on WP to create a pure Turkic origin for them. And it's not only limited to Iranian/Iranic topics. For example, Sumerians and Hungarian version of Turanism are also one of their quests. According to Tirgil34's posts, he created a 100% Turkic ethnogenesis for Indo-Iranians (Aryans) too. One of most ridiculous claims by him is his own version of Persian history and Central Asia. He and his friends denies almost all of Iranic/Indo-Iranian/IE elements of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Extreme pro-Turkic and anti-Iranian/anti-Persian, anti-European and even anti-Semitic movement. To analyze their behavior, you should browse talk pages and their archives too. Sometimes work with registered accounts, other times just IPs and temporary accounts (limited accounts used to spam and manipulate talk pages, no constructive edits). --Zyma (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Baghatur
Seems like this guy really like you   --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Turkism
It's clear to see that you hate Turks and you trying to add word "iran" in every single Turkish/Turkic related pages. You keep removing Oghur lang. from Avars, adding "iranic origin" -lol- to pages Atabek, Baghatur etc. Either add a source to page 'Baghatur' which CLEARLY says "the word Baghatur is an iranic word" -lmao- or stop changing the page. This site isn't place for impose your fanatical and inhumane hatred to other readers. regards. BöriShad (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Böri Shad

 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) --23.242.195.23 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

newest accounts of turkish troll Tirgil34
new case User:Egaplaicesp--2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what do you think? :-)
Hello Krakkos :-) I think your "buddy" (you know who I mean) has returned on several articles such as here and and here. Thought I'd share it with you as you are nowadays quite intimately bound to him, heh. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , what to do now, now that several of the socks I reported are blocked, with the Karachays etc articles that are messed up by him? It needs pin-point reverting regarding his edits only, which is quite difficult given that some of his edits there are lingering forth from months ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Krakkos!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Krakkos, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Caballero<font color= "#003878">/<font color= "#145073">/ <font color= "#006E0D">Historiador   ☊  14:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks. Happy New Year to you too! Krakkos (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1582 Cagayan battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingayen. 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) 09:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Krakkos!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Krakkos, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Zyma (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

new sock
uses same strange unverifiable russian sources and only edits central asian articles. you must watch him too.--188.158.98.8 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

hey
I don't know anything about the socks, you can check my older contributions, but those references in Xiongnu are just looking convenable. I hope you would reconsider them. --130.88.99.219 (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetic history of turkish people
This is the third time you are doin this. What was the reason for this:? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people&oldid=prev&diff=701407364

--Nedbud (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A VERY İMPORTANT WARNİNG
Dear User:Krakkos, due to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, when there is a disagreement going on you should at least find the mistake and explain why it's mistaken using quotes, but in Xiongnu page, you're unfortunately doing an Ad Hominem, in which you're just attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. I do believe that as an experienced Wikipedia writer you should strictly reconsider your edits. Richard Keatinge, AlexiusHoratius, Zyma

--130.88.99.230 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

IP sock?
This article have vandalised again. Another ip sock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.133.23 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

New sock(s) are active on R1a. User, a new user breaking WP:SYNTH policy is likely Tirgil34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.166.131 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Noticed this because R1a is on my watchlist. Worked on it many years ago. The two protagonists do not seem to have active talk pages, and it would be good to see them use the article talkpage. I could well be that both of them have a point, as the article has not been well updated for a long time and it is a fast moving field. In such situations, synth, or seeming synth, is certainly worth being careful of. But it is not possible to judge this based on lots of reverts. Please feel free to paste this comment on the talkpage, anyone, in order to try to start discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * lf that dubious user's edits were against the WP:SYNTH policy and conflict with the mainstream view-"R1a is not related to indo-european speakers"-, he is the person who should use the talk page. Tirgil34 is a long term abuser who vandalised (and vandalising) the wikipedia for years and R1a was one of his main targets. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: my reason of revert in addition to concerns regarding Tirgil. And i think that's enough for today. l have reported him admins and other users, they will decide about it. Regards...176.219.166.28 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Moxica's supposed precolumbian asian expeditions
Hi Krakkos,

I was reading the page on Adrián de Moxica that you started, and was interested in the claim "In 1481-1483 and 1485-1488 he led Spanish expeditions in India and the Middle East. The purpose of these expeditions was to establish connections with Indian merchants the Ottoman Empire in order to secure the Spanish throne access to Asian luxury goods. Although Moxica wrote of his success in various letters to the Spanish King Ferdinand II of Aragon, the expeditions did not lead to any notable results."

I'm a bit skeptical of this as I can't find any sources about it, and Irving Washington, who you cite, doesn't mention it. Is there a source for this? Thermocycler (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is primarily based on the one in Danish wikipedia. If you find information which cannot be verified then feel free to remove it. Krakkos (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks, I'll contact the Danish author. Thermocycler (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Right they didn't respond so have removed it from English + Danish versions. Thermocycler (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. Krakkos (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Mariandyni
Hello Krakkos, do you think it is possible to add Mariandynis to the List of ancient peoples of Anatolia? Just an info: today, in the region there is a people group in term "Manav". Thanks~for help Manaviko (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have added it now. Krakkos (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Targeted articles
Hi. It seems User:Tirgil34's targets are not limited and he's a hardcore anti-Iranian/anti-Persian who attacked many Persian/Iranian-related articles. For example, one of his socks User:Barayev was very active on Rumi and its talk page. I think he damaged many other articles. What do you think? --Zyma (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are definately correct. For example, Lamedumal, one of his most active socks, barely edited Central Asian topics at all, but rather racial theories, Middle Eastern politics etc. As can be seen from his Youtube and TheApricity accounts, see WP:Tirgil34, Tirgil34 is very interested in Iran-Azerbaijan issues. I'm certain that although editing Central Asian topics became difficult after we exposed him, he is still very active in socking on Iran-Azerbaijan-related topics and other articles. Be vigilant! Krakkos (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I said before he and his friends are very active on racialist websites (e.g. The Apricity) and several other forums. For example, this recent forum-like edit on Turanism is very similar to their posts on the apricity. Also, their endless rants on WP talk pages match with their posts on those forums. Add that article to your watchlist. I agree with you. He never abandon WP, because he has a nationalistic agenda. I may update his long-term abuse case. --Zyma (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to update the LTA. I've been intending to update it myself with information from the Egaplaicesp case, but administrators seem to be too lazy to recognize Egaplaicesp as a Tirgil34 sock. Krakkos (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I wait for your update and then I will edit case. I just want to add some additional info about his activity outside WP. I guess this guy and some of his friends paid by their govs or they work for a organized group (e.g. Grey Wolves). Did you see what he promotes on his youtube channel? I don't know why admins think he's a typical troll. That guy uses internet to spread pseudo-history, a modern version of Sun Language Theory + strong hatred against Iranians and Europeans. --Zyma (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's very dismaying to watch the amount of time admins spend on obvious trolling vandals. Tirgil34 and his friends' sophisticated fringe promotion, both in terms of content and method, is far more dangerous to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your niche
Hi Krakkos, I believe that this is more your niche of expertise. There's something definetely fishy going on with these users and their editorial pattern in particular. Both give me certain Escoperloit vibes. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

unsourced info on Ancient Anatolians
You added a history para and statement about Armenian possibly being influenced by the ancient Anatolian languages. This had been tagged for reference by another editor in November 2015 almost immediately (and somehow removed without action), and has been tagged again. I will wait a couple of days, and if you have no Reliable Source, will remove this statement. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about this new user?
Looks like another sockpuppet of Tirgil34. This time disguised as Italian! --Wario-Man (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 
 * 

Ways to improve Tudrus
Hi, I'm Xevus11. Krakkos, thanks for creating Tudrus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The german wikipedia has a bunch of information on this guy, over at. I'm sure you could copy over some citations and content without too much difficulty.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Xevus11 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for the tip. I might do that once i have the time for it. Krakkos (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue raised at WP:ANI
Good afternoon. Please see this topic at the ANI forum. You are welcome to contribute. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Elbe Germanic language and peoples
Hi Krakkos, I've reverted your recent merger of these two articles in good faith and explained why here. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Change of “Germanic peoples” to “Germanic tribes”
Hello, I have noticed numerous edits from you where you’ve changed “Germanic peoples” to the less accurate and antiquated “Germanic tribes”. You do not appear to have left a single edit summary while making these changes, nor do you appear to have engaged in discussion with any other editor about the topic. What is your justification for these changes? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bloodofox. I recently discovered several illogical aspects with the categories relating to Germanic peoples on Wikipedia. Highlighting all of them here would take too much time. I'm currently working on streamlining these categories to solve the issue. As this involves making a huge amount of edits, leaving edit summaries would be very time-consuming. I'm not entirely finished with this work, so at the moment, some of these categories might not make sense. That's why i've left Template:Under construction on Category:Germanic peoples. Regarding the changes to Category:Germanic tribes, this only involved articles previously linked to Category:Ancient Germanic peoples, not Category:Germanic peoples as a whole. Once i'm finished with this reorganization, the changes are going to make more sense. Don't worry :) Krakkos (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Krakkos I can imagine you have a complicated rationale for the various category tweeks you are doing but it would be good for you to record it somewhere in order to avoid unnecessary problems?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm seconding that, Krakkos. Not only are you not supplying edit summaries, but you're not actually explaining your changes on the talk page where they belong. This change from the Ancient Germanic families to the Gothic families cat most certainly needs to be explained to other editors prior a notional time when you've 'fixed' things and suddenly everything will become clear to everyone: asking others to wait and not to 'worry' really doesn't cut the mustard. That is not the time to discuss major changes as other editors may disagree with you on solid policy and guideline grounds. If you wish to make major changes to categories surrounding Germanic peoples/tribe/et al, please open a new discussion at [[WP:CFD]. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the issues currently being solved can be traced back to an editor who some years ago attempted to delete the category Germanic peoples and a host of related catogories. Though certainly competent in organizing Wikipedia categories, this user does not seem to have an equal amount of competence when it comes to Germanic studies. After his efforts at deletion failed, the very same user has almost completely reorganized this topic, resulting in many strange categories being created. For example, Germanic peoples has been separated into four unconnected categories, namely Category:Prehistoric Germanic peoples, Category:Ancient Germanic peoples, Category:Medieval Germanic peoples and Category:Modern Germanic peoples. This way of categorizing is inconsistent with comparable topics like Category:Slavs and Category:Turkic peoples, and creates nothing but confusion. Wikipedia has no such categories as "Prehistoric peoples", "Medieval peoples", or "Modern peoples". These four categories significantly overlap. For example, among the articles contained at Category:Prehistoric Germanic peoples, we find the Crimean Goths, a people who existed at least into the 17th century, that is to say the modern period. It should seem obvious that these are issues that should be fixed.


 * Iryna Harpy, your complaint about this edit at Balti dynasty is a good example of the problem here. The article clearly states that the Balti dynasty was a Gothic family, and the Category:Balti dynasty contains only Gothic individuals. Balti dynasty thus clearly belongs at Category:Gothic families, which is an under-category of Category:Germanic families. If one actually reads up on who the Balti dynasty were, this will seem obvious to anyone. Spending a big effort in discussing such obvious things is frankly a waste of time. Krakkos (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe anthropologists who study kinship systems (Kinship), for example, would beg to differ that "spending a big effort in discussing such obvious things is frankly a waste of time". In fact, the difference between a people and a tribe is significant and important to study. As a result, systemically going through these categories and switching "peoples" to "tribes" or, now, "tribal groups", is a problem that needs to be addressed. "Peoples" is far more semantically open and vague, reflecting the reality of our understanding of the record. In fact, we don't know how these confederations, dynasties, families, or whatever were grouped in many cases, rendering a judgment of "tribes" to be both antiquated and misleading to the reader. On top of that, some of these are, for example, vague exonyms, further complicating the issue. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no benefits in having vague categories. Preciseness is valued at Wikipedia. Category:Germanic tribes is specifically a category for tribes that were Germanic. According to Wikipedia this is "a social group existing outside of or before the development of states" which is dependent on its land for its "livelihood, largely self-sufficient and not integrated into the national society". Some of these Germanic tribes, like the Lombards and Franks, eventually existed throughout the development of states and thus ceased by the tribes, rather becoming ethnic groups. These could then eventually also be placed at Category:Germanic ethnic groups. Once one understands the issue, it's actually quite simple. If there is any article contained at Category:Germanic tribes which doesn't belong there, feel free to remove it. Krakkos (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, it looks like you're inventing as you go along, which is why you're making red flag statements like "it's quite simple". As I point out, the term tribe used in this context is both inaccurate, misleading, and highly controversial in the humanities (which even Wikipedia's current anemic article on the topic makes clear). These groups among the ancient Germanic peoples, like elsewhere, consisted of confederations, familial links, and a variety of kinship systems, all of which the word tribe cannot summarize, whereas peoples does — and which is why the term was used there in the first place. Kindly revert every instance where you've changed peoples to tribes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you've continued your edits without a response, consider this a final request for you self-revert before I begin reverting your changes of "[X] peoples" from "[X] tribes". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox, you are certainly correct that the term "tribe" doesn not adequately describe every unit of Germanic people that has existed throughout history. Category:Germanic peoples still exists as the parent category for these peoples. As you pointed out, such a category is vague. In such cases it is better to create specific subcategories for each issue. Consider the issue Category:Politics of Germany. This category has subcategories Category:Political organisations in Germany, Category:German political people etc. This is a much better solution than placing all German political parties and politicians into Category:Politics of Germany. Similarly, merging all the various units of Germanic peoples, whether we're talking about tribes, groups of tribes, clans or ethnic groups, in the parent category Category:Germanic peoples, which also includes Category:Germanic law, Category:Germanic culture etc, is not helpful. The various units of Germanic peoples now have their own categories:
 * Tribes, like the Lombards, Burgundians etc, are placed at Category:Germanic tribes
 * Groups of tribes, like the Suebi, Goths etc, are placed at Category:Germanic tribal groups (A better name for this category might be coined)
 * Clans, like the Category:House of Yngling, Category:Gausian dynasty, etc, are placed at Category:Germanic families
 * Ethnic groups, like Norwegians, Frisians, etc, are placed at Category:Germanic ethnic groups


 * This helps make things more specific and avoids having to place these units of people under the parent category. If there is any article placed in the above-mentioned categories which doesn't fit any of these categories, please point it out, and i will be happy to contribute to finding a solution. Krakkos (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also note that the German Wikipedia is using the same manner of thinking by distinguishing between de:Kategorie:Germanen and de:Kategorie:Germanischer Stamm. This is the norm. Please think everything through before engaging in any wholesale reversion. Krakkos (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Krakkos, thanks for the explanation so far but I still recommend making a page somewhere to explain the system being replaced and what it is being replaced with. That way you can just link to the rationale. Looking at what you've written above is fine at first sight, but there is clearly more going on than just a problematic distinction between "prehistoric", "ancient" etc?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

To point to another type of edit I am seeing, there is now a "Norman warrior" category. Like with the word "tribe", "warrior" has certain connotations that are fairly clear and they don't to be appropriate here. For example if we look at the life of Gilbert fitz Roger fitz Reinfried, he is an Anglo-Norman administrator, most important for his legal work first, and later as a Baron. Yes, that touched upon military things, but....? I think we know basically nothing about William de Lancaster I in terms of whether it was very military or not. I am even a bit uncomfortable with categorizing William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke this way. (His military prowess was very similar to how we see a great professional athlete.) To me it is difficult to see any basis for this new category. Is it just any Anglo Norman mentioned in documents about military confrontations? (So this would make George W Bush a "warrior".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Category:Norman warriors, there was such a large number of Normans engaged in violent combat that certain edits perhaps were made a little to quick. There might be individuals in that category who should not be classified as warriors. If you notice any such individual feel free to remove him. I still think the category should stand as several Normans, like Rollo, Robert Guiscard, Roger I of Sicily and plenty of others certainly were warriors. Krakkos (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Latin peoples, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please take the article to AFD if you wish to delete the content. Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Toddst1. I'm not seeking to delete any content, only merging two articles that should be merged. My redirect of Latin peoples to Italic peoples was not given without reason. As one can see in the edit, i linked to a a comment at Talk:Latin peoples as justification. It would be better to discuss the issue there rather than to leave comments like this at my talk page. Krakkos (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Iranian religion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arta and Magic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ancient_Iranian_religion check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ancient_Iranian_religion?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) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Germanic peoples edits
After reviewing your recent edits to the Germanic peoples page, I noticed that you failed to cite your sources in a manner consistent with the extant page's citations. Please follow the same formatting convention therein and make the corresponding corrections—particularly since you added so much content. It also is not appropriate to use sources like "Factmonster" which secondarily cite the Columbia University Encyclopedia. Find other more appropriate academic sources that are directly attributable. --Obenritter (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Obenritter. When noticing that i've "failed to cite your sources in a manner consistent with the extant page's citations" i'm assuming you're referring to the fact that i used Template:Cite book for certain sources rather than WP:SFN. This is because, as far as i know, SFN doesn't allow adding quotations in the source. When editing Germanic peoples earlier today i noticed that a large number of the sources used in were misrepresented. By having quotations in the source this is easier to avoid. It is worse to have sources misrepresented than having them digress from the manual of style. That "Factmonster" is quoting the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia can easily be verified by a Google search, but if using that website is so problematic it can of course be substituted with TheFreeDictionary.com, Orbis Latinus etc. Krakkos (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do mean by " a large number of the sources used in were misrepresented". You'll need to provide substantiated evidence to that end, using very specific instances in the text that can be accordingly verified as false or not in keeping with the source. BTW -- I have provided an example with the first reference you used in citing the Online version of Britannica. Perhaps you can refer to that as your template if it helps. You might even find it easier. On another note, "The FreeDictionary.com" or "Orbis Latinus" are not good substitutes for academic journals or scholarly books.--Obenritter (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to cite something verbatim you just place it "in quotation marks" and cite the sfn reference right behind it. Look at the last paragraph of Role in the Fall of Rome on the Germanic peoples page. You can also use the model as well for pages that have a Notes / notelist section like this page does. Look at the Pytheas section of this page for an example thereto. (Look at it in Edit mode) as well as how it appears in the text and how you can click on the reference. --Obenritter (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helpful advice, Obenritter. Having looked through the edit history i noticed the major contribution you have made to this article, and it is very understandable that you want the citations to be in the same manner of style. By misrepresentation of sources one can for example refer to Encyclopedia of European Peoples, Page 296. That ref was originally introduced by me to to show that scholars not only consider Germanic peoples as an historical, but also as a contemporary ethnolinguistic group. In the version before my edits yesterday this source was used for information about the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, but the source is not related to that battle. Similarly, the article Germanic peoples at Encyclopedia Britannica is used for information about how Proto-Germanic diversified during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, but the Britannica article neither mentiones Proto-Germanic nor the Pre-Roman Iron Age. These are but a few of many examples of misrepresentation of sources at Wikipedia's Germanic peoples article. Krakkos (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great to see you take some of those tips and put them to good use. Whenever and wherever you see wrongly sourced or misrepresented material, you should correct it accordingly—especially where it concerns Wikipedia citing an encyclopedia. Surely there are a few here and there as this is an enormous article with tons of drive-by editors over the years. When I first started editing it several years ago, a large percentage of it was verbatim extractions from a webpage—not exactly what I'd term a pinnacle of academic scholarship. It is vastly improved and gets better with time, but since so many trolls like to destroy pages, it is one that demands frequent vigilance. Sadly, I don't have much time for it anymore; hence my "Semi-retired" status. Good stewards and people interested in scholarship (as you seem to be) can help improve the page and keep it free from erroneous juvenile nonsense or copy-and-paste Pferdscheisse. Happy editing. --Obenritter (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alexios Axouch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alexios_Axouch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alexios_Axouch?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Latin Europe
 * Languages of Europe ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Languages_of_Europe check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Languages_of_Europe?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Latin Europe

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Frankish warriors has been nominated for discussion
Category:Frankish warriors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Krakkos has recently returned to active duty on the article pages of Wikipedia. Mostly all of nearly 6000 edits were to mainspace back then, adding to categories and articles and providing images. The history of the article Wusun shows the type and variety of quality improvements that Krakkos makes. Validating sourcing and protecting that article from vandals is also worthy of note. Other articles like Iranian peoples, Vandals, Goths and Gauls have all prospered due to Editor Krassos's attention. A fine candidate for Editor of the week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   12:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What a pleasant surprise! Having one's contributions appreciated like this certainly inspires one to continue participating in this project. I'll make sure to nominate more deserving editors for this award in the future. Thanks, Buster7 ! Krakkos (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

More drastic category edits
Krakkos, once again you have embarked on a massive undiscussed and unexplained rearrangement of categories. It is far from obvious that this is a good idea. It is an unfortunate weakness of the way WP is organized that this is possible for any editor to do without discussion. Ultimately the the only way to stop it is to topic ban the editor concerned from category edits. I'm not sure this wouldn't be a good idea in your case. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories are all interconnected, but often created and arranged by separate users throughout time. This often leads to inefficient and illogical arrangements of categories. Having them streamlined by a single user is a natural solution to the problem. Such an arrangement often involves hundreds of edits. If one would have to discuss every single one of those edits there would not be much time left over to actually build the encyclopedia. If you could mention the topic category of your concern and/or what specific changes you're concerned about, i'd be happy to try and remedy the problem. Krakkos (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are proposing new schemes, which go well beyond streamlining. It is for you to explain what they are, at a top level. This does not involve "discuss[ing] every single one of those edits" and it is clearly disingenuous to imply that it does. This reluctance to explain what you are actually doing only encourages suspicion, especially since in other areas, such as edits to article text, your edits are often contentious, and overturned by consensus. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rus' people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic nationalism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rus%27_people check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rus%27_people?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite a lengthy discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard I haven't yet taken time to read it. When you created North Germanic peoples on 14 July 2018, did you copy any of this material from another Wikipedia article, or is it all your own original work? Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * His, Wbm1058. The article is almost entirely my own original work. The section North Germanic peoples contains certain relevant elements from Vikings and Norsemen. The main source is An Introduction to Old Norse by E. V. Gordon, chiefly the introduction, which begins here. I would strongly advice you to read the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My main concern is with navigation issues; patrolling that stuff is how this caught my attention. wbm1058 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Suomarius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Suomarius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Scudilo
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Scudilo!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Priarius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Priarius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mederic (king)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Mederic (king)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Roman Stubs
Hi there. Through new page patrol I see you've been turning a lot of redirects into stubs. This is fine but I want to confirm that you think adequate sourcing exists to expand these beyond their current status. If so, great. If not, perhaps there is a better way to convey the information available than creating a long list of WP:PERMASTUB. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rorik I
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Rorik I!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kolbeinn hrúga
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Kolbeinn hrúga!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please WP:INLINECITE sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ravnur Hólmgarðsfari
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Ravnur Hólmgarðsfari!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please do not create unreferenced articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Knut Roriksson
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Knut Roriksson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Reginheri
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Reginheri!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please WP:INLINECITE sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Eriulf
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Eriulf!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please mark articles this length as stuns and add references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mardonius) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mardonius, Krakkos!

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

"Please don't move pages without resolving incoming links."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ostrogotho
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Ostrogotho!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please WP:INLINECITE your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Frigeridus (general)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Frigeridus (general)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Hunimund
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Hunimund!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Agilulf (Suebi)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Agilulf (Suebi), Krakkos!

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

"Please add your sources"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Chariomerus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Chariomerus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Italicus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Italicus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gadaric
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Gadaric!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vinitharius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Vinitharius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bjorn Asbrandsson
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Bjorn Asbrandsson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Godomar I
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Godomar I!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Caretene
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Caretene!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Adovacrius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Adovacrius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vithicabius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Vithicabius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Segimer
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Segimer!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ursicinus (king)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Ursicinus (king)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vadomarius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Vadomarius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rando (king)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Rando (king)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ostrogotha
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Ostrogotha!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Arnegisclus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Arnegisclus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Raicunda
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Raicunda!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Latinus (Alemanni)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Latinus (Alemanni)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have added a hatnote at Latinus so people can find this easily, and made the source inline.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bissula
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Bissula!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please put your sources inline.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Agenaric
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Agenaric!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please continue to work on this article, so the sources are inline.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Agilo
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Agilo!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please WP:INLINECITE the sources and tag articles of this length as stubs.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Hortarius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Hortarius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please WP:INLINECITE the sources and tag articles of this length as stubs.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bitheridus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Bitheridus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have made the source inline and marked it as a stub.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gomoarius
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Gomoarius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have put the source inline and marked it as a stub.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Malorix and Verritus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Malorix and Verritus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have made the source inline and marked it as a stub. Thanks for creating so many articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mallovendus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Mallovendus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please put your sources inline.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Segimundus
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating Segimundus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please put the sources inline.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alamannia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alamannia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alamannia?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Mederic
 * Dominant minority ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dominant_minority check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dominant_minority?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Hatti

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Battle of Sirmium (489)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Battle of Sirmium (489), Krakkos!

Wikipedia editor 1l2l3k just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for the article. Can it be expanded a little, maybe with the People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, Patrick Amory (page 397) book, by putting sources right after the paragraphs?--1l2l3k (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on 1l2l3k's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

1l2l3k (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tufa (general)
Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. Krakkos, thanks for creating Tufa (general)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for your new article on Tufa the general. Please consider adding some precise footnotes to the factual statements made in the article, pointing to specific page numbers in the book you already listed, or other sources if available. Good luck.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

--- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyksos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hyksos check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hyksos?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits on Norse mythology
Hello. Your obsession with the phrase "North Germanic" is becoming highly disruptive. Finding a single source using the term "North Germanic mythology" isn't reason enough to add that phrase (in bold letters to boot) to the lead of the article, since WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead should be an introduction to the article, and a summary of the most important things in the article, and the term you added isn't used anywhere in the article. And adding the term plus the reference you found to the body of the article, which I assume will be your next step, is not an option, since it would be giving the term undue prominence, unless yoy can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is widely used in reliable sources. So just stop. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have transferred that part down to the body of the article. Lotte Motz was a recognized expert in the field of Norse mythology. If you consider using her as a reference on that subject highly disruptive, you might want to consider raising your threshold for measuring disruptiveness. Krakkos (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the text about "North Germanic mythology" you added to the article since, as has already been pointed put to you in the edit summary of my latest revert, the single quote you give as source for it isn't the words of Lotte Motz but from a foreword or, more probably, a publisher's general description, of the work you give as reference (hint: authors don't refer to themselves in third person...). Which makes me doubt that you've seen the book you use as reference other than on a Google search page. If you continue to do what you have been doing, which is highly disruptive, you will be heading for WP:ANI and a request that you be topic banned from anything and everything that is even remotely connected to "North Germanic peoples". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when are introductions to scholarly papers forbidden from being used as sources on Wikipedia? The term North Germanic mythology is frequently used by Lotte Motz in her articles (hint: You can verify that through a website called Google Search). If highly disruptive edits to Norse mythology warrants a topic ban on articles related to North Germanic peoples, why would you be bending every effort to purge the term North Germanic from the Norse mythology article? The hypocrisy is astounding. I strongly encourage you go ahead with your threats. Watching you fail once again will be a source of further amusement. It might even backfire on your part. Krakkos (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Viking art
Do please stop this nonsense. As you will have discovered from your google searches, "North Germanic art" is a vanishingly rare term, and the rare uses generally refer to an earlier period than the Viking Age, such as the Migration Period. The use by Peter Clemoes clearly states it refers to finds in Kent some 300 years before the Viking period. It is also highly uncertain whether the makers or owners of these (probably Jutes) spoke West Germanic or North Germanic languages. Nor is Clemoes any sort of art historian. Your other source is translated from German, and refers to a find in modern Germany. Quite what is meant by "North Germanic" in this case is questionable, but in any case it is a dubious reference for usage in English. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While Peter Clemoes's usage of the term North Germanic art is rather ambiguous, its usage by Bernd Lohse is not. He is referring to the Hiddensee treasure, which is considered one of the foremost examples of Viking art. Since when did English translations of German-language works become "dubious" sources? Krakkos (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely nothing ambiguous about the date Clemoes is talking about at any rate. Translations from any language are highly unreliable for terminology in art history, because the translators normally directly translate the original terminology, as you'd know if you read any art history, where this constantly produces all sorts of howlers. Plus Lohse "war ein deutscher Fotograf, Bildreporter und Publizist", the link tells me - nothing about him being an art historian. So, even setting such issues aside, so far you've found a grand total of one usage for a piece of Viking art in the whole wide web.  Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Viking art is art produced in a non-English-speaking part of the world. It is therefore natural that local terminology influences English terminology. Giving one mention to these terminologies in the article is hardly undue. Your complaints about translated materials are of course just an excuse to purge the term North Germanic from Wikipedia. This is shown by your removal of references to English-language scholars Marijane Osborn and Hilda Ellis Davidson. And since when did Wilhelm Holmqvist become a "sub-standard source" on Viking art? Krakkos (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually a large proportion of Viking art was produced in parts of the world that are now English-speaking, which is rather the point. There is no need to use non-art historians when there are plenty of specialist sources easily available. I have no objection at all to North Germanic in its proper, linguistic, sphere, where it is actually used. I do object to you trying to replace all the other terms with it, against all normal usage. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been no attempt at replacing anything with North Germanic at Viking art. The only thing which has been attempted is to add a single phrase used in several reliable sources. Wilhelm Holmqvist was an internationally renowned art historian specializing in Viking art so your claim that i'm using "non-art historians" as sources is an outright lie. Marijane Osborn and Hilda Ellis Davidson were scholars on Viking Age culture, so their works are certainly relevant here. There are plenty of non-art historians already used as sources in the article. If your concerns about non-art historians were genuine you would have removed them as well. Krakkos (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Scandinavians
Hello. Please read pages/articles, and make sure you understand what they say, before editing them. The page lists all three common definitions for "Scandinavians", based on ethnicity (i.e. ethnic group), based on geographic location, and based on cultural/linguistic definition, and the Finns and Sami were, quite correctly, listed under the second definition, "geographic location". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Scandinavians says that it is about various ethnic groups inhabiting Scandinavia. Many of the mentioned groups are not Germanic, and Template:Germanic peoples therefore does not belong there. A user unable to understand such basic logic, such a yourself, should be careful with leveling attempted insults as the one above. Krakkos (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Scandinavians isn't an article, it's a disambiguation page... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The version of Scandinavians which you are referring to says nothing about the article being a disambiguation page. Please read pages/articles and make sure you understand what they say before editing them. In any regards, i agree with you that the page should be a disambiguation. I have now made it into a proper disambiguation page. Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious from the layout of the page that it is a disambiguation page. If you change the page to your preferred POV version again, you will be reported. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Classifying a disambiguation page in accordance to WP:DAB, which is what i did, is neither POV nor disruptive. Please go ahead and file your report. Though being forced to defend myself against your vicious attacks once more would be a waste of time, Wikipedia would benefit from you making another fool of yourself. Krakkos (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your drive-by tagging of Scandinavians too, since you seem to have totally misunderstood what that page is: it's a disambiguation page, not an article, and doesn't need any references, since it's just a page of links to articles. A page based on the three definitions of "Scandinavians" that are in common use in the English language. If you don't feel the definitions are correct, start a discussion on the talk page of the page, and get support from other editors there, but don't make undiscussed changes to it to make it fit your own POV. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Though the page Scandinavians indeed should be a disambiguation page, it was not mentioned as such when you removed the templates. It is rather you who should be able to understand the difference between what an page is and what an page should be. Krakkos (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for adding POV pipes turning every mention of Scandinavia/Scandinavians in articles into a link to your own POV-fork, North Germanic peoples, in spite of massive opposition from multiple other editors. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The Wikipedia article about ethnic North Germanic/Scandinavian speakers is titled North Germanic peoples. References to ethnic North Germanic/Scandinavian speakers should therefore be linked to the relevant article. References to inhabitants of Scandinavia should be linked to Scandinavia. That is what i did and there is nothing disruptive about that. It is rather removing such relevant links which is disruptive editing. The only "massive opposition" which has been expressed is the unanimous opposition expressed by members of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies to your ideas. Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, edits such as this are ridiculous. Lenz said Nordic, there's a source called "Nordic racism", your edit is just original research and given the past discussions, disruptive. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is only one of dozens of such edits Krakkos has made today, and one of hundreds or thousands he has made over an extended period. There have been a number of discussions, where he normally responds by throwing a smoke-screen of not really relevant usages from books of various sorts, and otherwise remains impervious to objections. Sooner or later this will end up at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Appearently, citing respected scholars on the Viking Age like E. V. Gordon, J. R. R. Tolkien, Lotte Motz, Wilhelm Holmqvist, Marijane Osborn, Hilda Ellis Davidson and others is throwing a smoke screen and disruptive editing. If you think that argument will get you anywhere at ANI, i wish you good luck. Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller - According to the source ( Geoffrey G. Field, "Nordic Racism", Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, p. 526), Lenz said: "The German nation is the last refuge of the Nordic race...before us lies the greatest task of world history". The phrase in the article i changed was: "Lenz took the view that Slavs were inferior to Nordic peoples". That phrase is not backed up by any source and was inserted before the source "Nordic racism" was used in the article. It is itself original research. As the disambiguation page Nordic people states, the term Nordic peoples is on some occasions synonymous with Germanic peoples, in particular in the Nazi terminology of Lenz. If Lenz believed in Slavic inferiority, it would be in relation to Germanic peoples, as the Nordic race is a racial category in which Slavs were also part.
 * In your edit summary you falsely accuse me of "adding my content fork" by linking to Germanic peoples. Germanic peoples was created by Travist in October 2001, ten years before i joined Wikipedia. It is obviously not my content fork. It's ridiculous, actually quite frightening, that a powerful and experienced editor such as you has permitted himself to be misled by the misrepresentations of Thomas W. Krakkos (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely have some COMPETENCY concerns here.--Moxy (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Moxy. If you have the competence to explain the reasons for your concerns, ideally with examples, doing so would be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I scared you, but I would have thought you'd realised I was confusing it with North Germanic peoples. Which may have been what Thomas W. was doing, but I notice above that you don't seem to assume good faith. As for Lenz, as you know he was a great advocate of Nordic supremacism, and for him Nordic encompassed more than just the Germans. According to Robert N. Proctor, "As one might imagine, it is the Nordic race that for Lenz is the hero of history. The Nordic race created the Aryan Indo-Germanic languages and civilizations, from Hindustani and Persian to Hellenistic and even Roman. (Roman busts, according to Lenz, often “have a typically Brandenburg look.”) Nordic blood was decisive in the discoveries and conquests of the Portuguese; Nordic blood produced the Protestant Reformation; the Dutch expertise in navigation; the empires of the British, the Russians, and the Spanish; and most of the world’s great science and inventions." So no, I don't think your edit was an improvement. Doug Weller  talk 15:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you assumed good faith when reverting my edits at Fritz Lenz either, but i accept your apology. Lenz was obviously a Nordic supremacist. Your source says nothing about Lenz considering Slavs inferior to the Nordic race. What the source does say, however, is that Lenz believed that the Nordic race created the Indo-Germanic languages and the Russian Empire. The Slavic languages are part of the Indo-Germanic languages, and the Russian Empire was the empire of Russians, who are a Slavic people. It does not make sense that Lenz would consider Slavs inferior to a racial category of which the Slavs were themselves part. Krakkos (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Thomas.W. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. and this page. Doug Weller  talk 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dougweller - I assume that you're referring to the section of WP:NPA which deals with "accusations about personal behavior". It is true that i accused Thomas.W of misrepresenting my edits. He falsely accused me of piping and linking to POV-forks. As these mirepresentations were proven by diffs, pointing them out do not consitute personal attacks as per policy. This kind of misrepresentations and straw man tactics by Thomas.W are not isolated incidents, but part of a pattern. Earlier he falsely accused me of holding the idiotic belief that Norsemen constitute a language family, and then sought to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia as per WP:CIR. He also implied that i was too stupid to edit Wikipedia. This aggressiveness is not only directed at me. Since his earliest days at Wikipedia Thomas.W has been engagaged in this kind of behavior, referring to disagreeing editors from Eastern Europe of being "rabid dogs". If there's any editor who has been engaged in personal attacks it is Thomas.W, not me. Krakkos (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who do you think you're fooling? Anyone can check your edits and see for themselves how you through POV pipes changed scores of links that previously lead to Norsemen or Scandinavians to instead lead to your own article, North Germanic peoples, while still saying what they said before, i.e. "Norsemen" or "Scandinavians". Attack isn't always the best defense... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article North Germanic peoples was created at your suggestion. Why you're suddenly accusing it of being a POV-fork is a mystery. The "warning" from you which spawned this thread was issued due to edits i made yesterday, all of which you have reverted. Let's inspect some of these reverts in detail so that anyone who reads this can see your disruptiveness for themselves.
 * Genetic studies on Sami: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You reverted a link to Nordic countries, which was not piped, not a POV-fork, and not an article i have created. This is a misrepresentation.
 * Slavs: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You reverted a link to North Germanic peoples, which is the proper link in this article as it is an ethnolinguistic group like Uralic peoples. The link to North Germanic peoples was not piped. To the contrary, you're the one who is creating a piped link to Varangians. Your explanation for this revert is another misrepresentation.
 * Dutch people: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You removed a link to North Germanic peoples, which is already mentioned in the article. There was no piping. Your explanation for this revert is another misrepresentation.
 * Russian culture: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You reverted a link to Swedes (Germanic tribe), which was not piped, not a POV-fork, and not an article i have created. This is a misrepresentation.
 * King of Dragon Pass: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv: not helpful". You replaced a link to North Germanic peoples with a link to Nordic countries. This is obviously wrong. The Sami people and Greenlandic Inuit are people of the Nordic countries, but had no lawspeakers, fyrds or thunder gods. Your description of my edit as unhelpful is clearly a misrepresentation.
 * History of Western civilization before AD 500: You reverted my edit with the explanation "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You replaced a link to North Germanic peoples with a link to Nordic countries. As the term Nordic is clearly used in an ethnolinguistic context here, a link to North Germanic peoples is correct. Your explanation of this as a POV edit is another misrepresentation on your part.
 * Midsummer: You reverted my edit with the explanation: "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You replaced a link to North Germanic peoples with a link to Nordic countries. As the term Nordic is clearly used in an ethnolinguistic context here, a link to North Germanic peoples is correct. Your explanation of this as a POV edit is another misrepresentation on your part.
 * May 2013 Stockholm riots: You reverted my edit with the explanation: "unhelpful". You simply removed a link to Nordic countries. According to the source, Arnulf Kolstad says: "In the Nordic region most people have welcomed the Arab Spring". Linking to Nordic countries in this context is therefore clearly helpful. Your explanation of this as an unhelpful edit is another misrepresentation on your part.
 * Sippenhaft: You reverted my edit with the explanation: "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". You replace a link to North Germanic peoples with a link to Scandinavia. The link was not piped, and is proper. Scandinavia is a region, not a Germanic people. Your description of my attempt to fix this obvious mistake is yet another misrepresentation by you.
 * History of Europe: You reverted my edit with the explanation: "Rv POV pipe leading to an article (a POV-fork) they have created". There was no piping. Your explanation for this revert is another misrepresentation.
 * In addition to all these misrepresentations your edits involved adding links to DAB pages and simply removing correct links to North Germanic peoples on a wide range of articles.
 * These are but a few of yesterdays examples of a pattern of disruptive editing which appears to have been carried out throughout more than a decade. Krakkos (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

- Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting things, as usual: I did not suggest that you should create an article named North Germanic peoples but an article named "North Germanic tribes", a term that refers to the prehistory and early history of the Germanic peoples of Scandinavia only, not more recent time periods. As for the rest, these pipes/link changes of yours that I reverted after your latest POV-spree speak for themselves:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Now you are even misrepresenting yourself. What you suggested was creating " an article about North Germanic people in general, covering all North Germanic tribes and all time periods". Once the article was created you complained neither about the title or percieved POV-forking, but rather helped define its scope from 200 AD up to the present day. Thinking that North Germanic tribes is the correct title for an article of such scope shows a lack of competence. This lack of competence might be the cause of your peculiar identification of the edits above as disruptive. The real POV-spree was the removal of correct links to North Germanic peoples which you embarked on after failing to have it moved to Scandinavians. Krakkos (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not misrepresenting anything, North Germanic peoples is commonly used only for the prehistory and early history of the Scandinavian peoples. As you have been told umpteen times. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you are misrepresenting yourself yet again. Scroll up and have a look at your previous edit once more. It doesn't matter if your repeat your theory a million times, as long as you're not providing any sources, your claims are of zero value. Krakkos (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Your Recent New Articles
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that as a member of the new pages patrol I have reviewed several of your recent articles on figures like Sidimund, Aidoingus, Frideric, etc.. All are good starts but please expand those articles with precise page numbers from the reference book that you have used, plus any other additional sources that may be found. While these figures all existed in history, it is important to remember that in Wikipedia, existence does not prove notability and more evidence of notability would help all of these articles. Good luck. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to redirecting your articles
It seems I missed the fact you were citing the specific book. I have marked both as patrolled now. In future could you remember to cite the specific pages for more verifiability. Again, apologies for hassle. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Araratic. No worries. I agree with your suggestion. In return i would recommend you to be more careful in the future when making such drastic edits. Krakkos (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Norsemen
Hi Krakkos. You do great work, and the article on North Germanic peoples is an interesting read regardless of the controversy. I would appreciate it if you stopped rewriting Norsemen. I know it needs work, and it is on my list of things to work on, but I just don't think the topic is compatible with your work. Every time you work on it becomes closer to being a copy of North Germanic peoples, and there is no need for an article like that. Not every article needs to be based on ethnolinguistics, which I understand to be your area of expertise. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Frayae. Thank you for your kind words. Your civility and ability to keep cool during heated discussions is something every Wikipedian should strive for. The Norsemen were a collection of ethnic groups identified by speaking Old Norse, so the topic is obviously related to ethnolinguistics. My edit was merely a removal of content which didn't belong there and some minor rearrangements, it was not an attempt of rewriting the article altogether. This can be seen in the edit history. As someone who does "great work" on the topic, i would recommend you to spend your abilities on improving other articles than Norsemen, as its scope is indeed identical to North Germanic peoples. Improving the article Viking Age would be a good start. Krakkos (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I am working on a list of viking age Icelanders at the moment and will try and apply what I learn from that to the Viking Age article. There is some debate which could be of interest to you on Talk:Vikings regarding the idea of which articles should be linked to from where and why. There's no sign of it being resolved yet as there is now a debate over vikings from Estonia. If you know anything about the norse in Estonia then you could always join in. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to check out the issues at Talk:Vikings. Are you a mind reader as well? Haha. Much of the content at Vikings is about Viking Age culture and history in general. Major parts of that article should be moved to Viking Age instead, as the majority of Viking Age people were not Vikings, but rather farmers, fishermen etc. Krakkos (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oeselians
Hi, could you please study the sources on Oeselians and then discuss. There are no sources that say Oeselians were Norse. I have also not seen any sources which say Oeselians were "historical people" or of unknown ethnicity. There are on the other hand dozens (hundreds?) of sources which say Oeselians were "Estonian". Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Germanic peoples on Ösel
Hi, you said on the Norsemen talk page that Gustav Ränk claims there were germanic people living on Ösel. In his source he says "It is not impossible" that there might have been germanic tribes living on Ösel. How can you turn that around to "he claims"? Also, the Roman Iron Age ends at 400 AD. The Viking Age starts at 793 AD. How can you talk about the same time period? Why do you do this? You deleted all my sources on the Oeselians page without even commenting on them or saying which source you don't agree with, and now present a source that's 300 years in the wrong direction and doesn't say what you claim it says. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not representing anything. Ränk states that it is evident that there were Germanic settlements in coastal Estonia during the Roman Iron Age.[ Likewise, [[Oskar Loorits|Loorits]] believed that "there must have been Germanic settlements on Estonian shores to cause such deep influences." I read your sources carefully, and it is they who are misrepresented. Many of the sources you are providing are not reliable, for example this one through the self-publishing Lulu.com. This should be discussed at Talk:Norsemen rather than at my talk page. Krakkos (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the Roman Iron Age ended at 400AD? And Ränk himself claims that those germanic tribes had by then assimilated? How exactly is this source usable to say that there was Norse inhabitat on Ösel after 793? Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What does this do??
Hi there. I'm intrigued by this edit - would you mind educating me on what it actually does, please? I can see that it is something to do with how the reference works, but I can't see what the effect is exactly! I'm sometimes a bit baffled by ref syntax and am always interested to learn what others are doing - so, sorry to bother you, but thanks in advance. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It adds a link to the author of the source. Krakkos (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ancestors of Estonians
You should comment on the talk page why you reverted that edit. The source is clear on all people who lived in Estonia during that era. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The justification for that edit has already been discussed in detail here. This discussion belongs at Talk:Oeselians, not at my talk page. Krakkos (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve James Graham-Campbell
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Krakkos, thanks for creating James Graham-Campbell!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. All biographies of living people need multiple, independent WP:INLINECITED references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your driveby tags. Current general references are acceptable as per WP:MINREF. Krakkos (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * 1.02 editor, i'm assuming you're referring to edits at Saint Afra. At that article you reverted an edit by an IP back to my previous version. Your message should have been left at the talk page of the IP, not here, as it was not my edit you reverted. Krakkos (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry for the mistake there I seemed to have clicked wrongly when opening the talk page. you may want to remove the above notice from your talk page if you wish. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34
Your creating a new report with a user from the previous report, which was closed, is disruptive. I've removed the report and archived the case. Don't do that again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bbb23. The report you removed was radically different from the earlier one you had closed. There was no indication that any technical or behavioral evidence on Erminwin had been reviewed in the closed case, and i had come across lots of new evidence on Erminwin. This is of course hard to notice when one spends less than three minutes reviewing the evidence. Evidence from etymologies, Sabir people Lanikaz, Wusun and other articles would show beyond doubt that Erminwin is a sock of Tirgil34. It should be remembered that it took more than four investigations to establish the fact that Egaplaicesp was a sock of Tirgil34. Tirgil34 has for years abused Wikipedia through hundreds of sockpuppets in order to cunningly promote nationalist fringe theories. It is very unfortunate for Wikipedia that less than three minutes are spent to detect such disruptiveness. Krakkos (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings,Bbb23 and Krakkos, Erminwin's here. I assure you two that I am not Tirgil34 (Kipchak Hakan) or Barefact (Norman Kisamov?). I am merely an American UMD Linguistics student. I never intended, and will never intend, to push anti-IE, anti-Iranian, Pan-Turkic propaganda. I actually opposed both Tirgil34's & Barefact's Pan-Turkism. I agreed with the scholarly consensus that the Scythians & Sarmatians were Eastern Iranians. I've been trying my best to edit out Pan-Turkism. One of my first edits involved elimination all groundless connection between the modern Kazakh sub-tribe Uysyn & the the IE Wusun known to Han Chinese from 2nd c. to 5th c.; put the "citation needed" tag to demand sources for the claim that the Chinese 哥舒 kɑɕɨə̆ transcribed Qazar even though Qazar was transcribed as 可薩 kha'sat (EMC/LMC) &(曷薩) γat-sat in (EMC) & xɦat sat (LMC); eliminated the suggestion (by Barefact, I don't know who included that, possible another Tirgil34's sock) about an alleged connection between Khotanese Hitala & an Uyghur word meaning "strong" (which Barefact did not even provide). I naively thought that, because both etymologies for Hephthalites provided by Kurbanov were Iranian (Khotanese & Middle Persian), that'd somehow bolster the claim that the Hephthalites were predominantly Iranian-speaking. I included Vovin's proposed Yeniseic etymology for chanyu because Vovin does not deem the Xiongnu to be Turkic-speaking. Additionally, I truly regret (1) my inclusion of Starostin's & Clauson's opinions about the "native Turkic" status of *bȫrü- (wolf) in the Wusun article & (2) my expounding upon Yuri Zuev's opinion that Lanikaz should be amended to Laktan by pointing out that Zuev noticed the simialrly-sounding Middle Chinese lɑk̚-dɑ (camel) (to confess, I included the "camel" pseudo-etymology out of amusement). I actually considered Zuev a sloppy & mediocre scholar: I am not an expert in Sino-Tibetan historical phonology; yet I found it absurd Zuev's opinion that Han Chinese would transcribe Turkic *igil as 思结 *snɯkiːd (ZS) or *[s]əkˤi[t] (BS) & somehow 思结 could be linked to Danubian Bulgar dynasty Uokil (or how Zuev, without any shred of evidence, etymologized "Faunus-Ficarius" as "Huns and Tochars", fortunately even the Pan-Turkists consider such an "etymology" too idiosyncratically outlandish to be put on wikipedia). Again, my deepest regret & sincerest apology; I should've gone to the talk page 1st before editing. If you feel that any of my edits had unintetionally promoted fringe theories, feel free to revert them. Erminwin (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi. Maybe you should take it to WP:ANI or asking other checkusers/admins, or even contacting bureaucrats? See if you can submit the report again. As I said it several times, Tirgil34's agenda is a serious case and our reports are just temporary solutions. See these AfDs:, The 2nd report assured me that Barefact = Tirgil34. Did you see how he turned Turkology into his agenda? Also look at his recent blog posts. His anti-IE rants is identical to Tirgil34's. Plus his 2006-2009 edits (both articles and talk pages) remind me of Tirgil34 and co. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, Wario-Man. There is indeed clearly an effort by Pan-Turkic propagandists to infuse Wikipedia with fringe theories. This is a matter as serious as Church of Scientology editing and other conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, but the subject is so obscure and complicated that few editors understand the significance. In fact, it is in many ways more dangerous, because this pseudo-scholarly propaganda material is so readily available and because its pseudo-scholarly character is so hard to detect. These bogus theories have widespread support in academic circles in various post-Soviet states, receives government support from the highest level, and is widely disseminated in elementary school textbooks in these countries. Turkish Wikipedia is thoroughly infested with this, and if it hadn't been for your great work over the years, i fear English Wikipedia would have been similarly damaged. You are right that these endless sockpuppet investigations are only temporary solutions. Something deeper has to be done.


 * Barefact and Tirgil are indeed promoting exactly the same theories. I don't think they are the same person. Tirgil lives in Germany and speaks German. Barefact does not appear to be speaking German, and certainly does not live in Germany. TurkicWorld is owned by Barefact. Compare the references to Scytho-Iranian theory, Masguts and Scytho-Nakh Theory on his userpage with similar references on the TurkicWorld website. The reason Barefact and Tirgil are so similar, i think, is that Tirgil is largely transferring material from Barefacts website into Wikipedia. It is however possible that they may be sharing accounts, and it is almost certain that they are coordinating their activities. The videos at Barefacts website are largely from the Youtube user ✣ ᵀᵊᵑᴿᶤ • Spirit of the Steppe ✣. A video by this user, Sakha folk song - Amazon warriors • "Кönül Sanaa", contains a link to an edit by one of Tirgil's German IP socks which restores content by Tirgil sock Su4kin. This Youtube user is therefore obviously Tirgil. Another video, King Arthur's Turkic Knights - The Sarmatians (Remake), contains multiple links to TurkicWorld, and also a link to this image edited by numerous Tirgil socks, including Tirgil sock Nedbud. The very same image is also uploaded at The Apricity by the user Kipchak Hakan. Kipchak Hakan is therefore also obviously Tirgil.


 * As ✣ ᵀᵊᵑᴿᶤ • Spirit of the Steppe ✣ is still uploading videos on Youtube, Kipchak Hakan is still posting on The Apricity and Tirgil sock Hirabutor is still editing on Wiktionary, there can be no dobut that Tirgil is still socking on Wikipedia. I have already pointed out that both Seriouslemonade and Erminwin are probable Tirgil socks. Many additional sockpuppets might be hiding behind those accounts. I currently don't have the time, and i don't think it would be wise for me to file another report or contact other editors about this issue for the time being. If you wish to file a report or contact other administrators about the issue, i encourage you to use this evidence. Also, this essay by Barefact shows conclusively that he is a soapboxer and not here to build an encyclopedia. Good luck and thank for your work! Krakkos (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, what it will take are sanctions. Just like Armenia/Azerbaijan2, American politics, Arab/Israel, India/Pakistan, etc. When admins finally tire of the fringe Turkic nonsense that is continually being forced(ie.sockpuppetry, edit warring, on & off Wiki editing coordination) into Wikipedia articles, then Arbcom will impose sanctions on that area of editing. Unfortunately, it may be extremely far down the road. What would help even more is a "500 edits and accounts with less than 30 days tenure not allowed to edit in this particular area" - type of restriction. Wishful thinking I would imagine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Kansas Bear. This is extactly what i've been thinking as well. The damage done at Central Eurasian genetics/linguistics/archaeology/history by Pan-Turkic IP socks and BRIEF socks far outweigh the contributions made by IP's and briefly used accounts in this topic area. Krakkos (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Belated response. I would have to agree with asking for Arbcom action. This nonsense has to end. But what would the chances be for Arbcom to impose these measures? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Discussion in Tabiti
There is currently a discussion to merge the article Tabiti into Scythian Religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tabiti Squatch347 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested
- LouisAragon (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Iranian history has been nominated for discussion
Category:Iranian history, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

english people germanic rfc
hi you are invited to comment on Talk:English people 83.185.85.204 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Iranic categories
I just added some comments there. I'd like your feedback on my comments. I propose pluralizing the terms like Iranic culture to Iranic cultures. This is because Iranic peoples, languages and cultures are more than just one. But also importantly I need someone's help in removing the "Turk" and "Turkish" labels from Turkic ethnicities including those in Iran. As per your explanations, we need to distinguish between nationality and ethnic/anthropological terms. Currently, Turkic ethnic groups of Iran are being mislabeled as "Turks". Please review my comment. Thank you.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:People of Italic descent has been nominated for discussion
Category:People of Italic descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. Not sure what to do now
It’s been a while since I’ve been actively editing Wikipedia; however I still read it every day. I was on the main page and noticed an error on the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. The 315 byte mobile edit one. I logged in to try and edit it only to see that my IP had been banned. This came as quite a shock to me as I haven’t edited the site in over a year! Anyway I looked through my notifications and while you did thank me for my expansion of Category:Iranian nomads you accused me of being a User:Tirgil34 sock puppet. What more, the case is closed and archived so I don’t think there’s much I can do to get rid of this accusation. I am quite offended by the comment not only because I am first and foremost not a sock puppet, but also because I feel like I fought off Turkish nationalism propaganda BS quite vigorously during my brief time editing Wikipedia articles. Just because I have interest in Central Asian history does not mean I’m a Turanist. Also if you look at where you accused me, one of the pieces of evidence was simply not done by me, and the other one I made an honest mistake and talk about it and admit fault to User:Wario-Man in the talk page. I’m really just venting here but I’m quite upset at this whole ordeal and not sure what to other than writing this wall of text here. Best, -User:Darokrithia Darokrithia (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy J. Smith moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Jeremy J. Smith, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CASSIOPEIA - According to reliable sources published by the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Language Dictionaries, Smith is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and President of the International Society for the Linguistics of English. He thus qualifies for notability as per WP:NACADEMIC (3) and WP:NACADEMIC (6). Therefore, i object to you draftifying this article. In accordance with WP:DRAFTIFY, is request you to move the page back to mainspace. As per policy, you can instead list it at AfD. Krakkos (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Krakkos, Good day. New page can be drafty to get creator to add more independent, reliable sources - see WP:NPPDRAFT. Do provide sources (inline citation) as per above stated. Once you have done that let me know and I will review it and get it publish in mainspace. thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CASSIOPEIA - I've already moved the article back to mainspace. Looking forward to your review. Krakkos (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Need you to provide source for Royal Society of Edinburgh|Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh which is the reason why the article had moved to draft space. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CASSIOPEIA - I've added this source. Krakkos (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice! Krakkos (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yevhen Chernenko
Hello, Krakkos,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Yevhen Chernenko, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click   button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Onel5969. See Talk:Yevhen Chernenko for my response. Krakkos (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Philippopolis and Sciri ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Germanic_peoples check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Germanic_peoples?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) 07:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Yevhen Chernenko for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yevhen Chernenko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Yevhen Chernenko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of images
I think you should explain fully why are deleting images uploaded by a user. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with some of the images you deleted (e.g. File:Uyghur Meshrep.jpg File:Karachay patriarchs in the 19th c.jpg File:Ladislaus (left) Cuman (right).jpg), the user did not create the image, he uploaded them. If you think there is something wrong with the images, then ask Wikimedia Commons to delete them (for example, the second one can be deleted for duplication) rather than deleting them from articles. Images allowed on Wikimedia Commons are free to be used in Wikipedia articles, and you need a good reason why they should be deleted. Hzh (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those images were created by Tirgil34 and various sockpuppets. If there is nothing wrong with the images feel free to restore them. Cheers. Krakkos (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Nordicism.

User:Steve Quinn while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job. Nordicism merely consists of content i transferred from Nordic race. There is still plenty of work to be done. Krakkos (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic group
Hi Krakkos! Ok, you may have dug out one source which applies the term "ethnolinguistic group" in the sense "group of ethnolinguistic groups sharing linguistic ancestry". Neverless, this usage is incorrect (or to be less judgemental: sloppy) as it does not conform to the ethnological and linguistic textbook definition of the term. I'd be more convinced if you could provide a source that not simply employs "ethnolinguistic group" in the innovative sensu lato-manner, but which defines it accordingly. Adherence to common usage in terminology is quintessintial for a NPOV. – Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey! The common terminology on Wikipedia for groups such as Balts, Iranian peoples, Slavs and others is ethnolinguistic group. Paul Robert Magocsi is a reliable source. Krakkos (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Common terminology on Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect common usage in the respective research area. And being a reliable source from a notable researcher does not preclude that parts of it do not conform to standard terminology. Which you may check by looking at how your other sources describe the modern-day Germanic (etc.) peoples. As I said, provide a source that not simply employs "ethnolinguistic group" in the unconventional sensu lato-manner, but which defines it accordingly. If Magocsi (2018) provided a glossary, then you would have a reliable source for terminology. Note also that in the proceeding text on p.97, Magocsi goes on to employ "ethnolinguistic group" strictly in the correct manner (i.e. for Germans, Poles, Magyars) which is why I am bold enough to say that Magocsi went a bit sloppy in the first paragraph, but not for us to imitate. – Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. A term may however have multiple meanings. Most sources simply refers to Germanic peoples, Slavs, Balts, Polynesians etc. simply as "groups" without mentioning the term "ethnolinguistic". However, as long as there are no alternative terms for such entities that are more prevalent than "ethnolinguistic", we might as well continue using it. Krakkos (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For lack of a better alternative, and having an example from a reliable source, it could certainly be used, but I am always hesitant when it comes to non-standard or unusual terminology, because WP and all its mirrors will multiplicate it on the web, and eventually propel a minority usage of a term to wider currency. Basically, it is a matter of how the word "group" is perceived in different disciplines. In sociology and sociolinguistics (where the term "ethnolinguistic group" actually originates from), "group" always means "group of individuals" with a clear sense of in-group identity, including ethnic groups, or ethnolinguistic groups in the strict sense. Whereas in linguistics, "group" is always perceived as "group of languages"; hence it is quite tempting to extend ad hoc the meaning of "ethnolinguistic group" to refer to a "group of groups". Btw, the more correct "group of ethnolinguistic groups" is stylistically awkward, which was the main reason I used the word "collection" instead, however without any intention to question the validity of the entity itself which is described in the article. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. We must always be cautious when dealing with subjects such as this. Krakkos (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nordicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Americanism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nordicism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nordicism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue has now been resolved. Krakkos (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34's leftovers and uploaded images on Wikimedia Commons and EN WP
Hi. Do you have a list of his uploads and leftovers? I want to nominate most of them for deletion. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have fun :) Krakkos (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Genetics

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Maps

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Ethnology

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Other

 * 
 * 
 * 

Wikipedia

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Wiktionary
Krakkos (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Goths ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Goths check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Goths?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Toledo and Arbogast
 * Scythians ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Scythians check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Scythians?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Assyrian language

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspect sockpuppet of Tirgil34
Hello Krakkos, I am not sure, but this editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hunan201p) seems to edit nearly identical topics as Tirgil34 and also seems to dislike Indo-European presence in Central Asia. Also his aggressive edit summaries remember me on Tirgil34 and his many socks. Currently we blocked three sockpuppets in the German Wikipedia. (Alone today two accounts...). Could please take a look on him and his edits? Thank you and greetings!213.162.68.224 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:American Jews of Latin European descent
Category:American Jews of Latin European descent has been nominated for merging with Category:American Jews of European descent. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. I support the proposition. Krakkos (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Germanic Peoples
Hey, I've been noticing a lot of the same issues on every article related to Germanic peoples, specifically the English, as well as your involvement in the same usual debates. Have you managed to make any progress convincing this rabid core of editors who are fervently trying to censor the concept (or I suppose I should say the reality) of a Germanic ethnolinguistic group? I honestly cannot understand this at all. Every single other ethnolinguistic group has no problems with this or with articles about the modern ethnolinguistic groups existing. And every single ethnic group out there is listed as belonging to Slavic or Romance ethnic groups.

This is beyond a joke, surely there is something we can do about this? The concept that a Germanic peoples don't exist today is preposterous. It's not about self identity, speakers of Germanic languages clearly exist today, they're very numerous and as speakers of Germanic languages they're CLEARLY the living relics of the Germanic peoples of antiquity, continuing an unbroken chain of continuous Germanic language speaking for millennia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Krakkos. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 6,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Tabiti
Hi Krakkos, just a heads up that Orientls is updating the Tabiti page to restore sockpuppet content against the majority findings in the AFD section on the talk page. I'm not sure what it is about this stub article that attracts so much attention from the same account. Squatch347 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Small update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Orientls_reported_by_Squatch347_(Result:_)
 * The issue seems to have been resolved now. Thanks for your efforts. Krakkos (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Krakkos, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AKrakkos added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 13:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi, please slow down with your deletion requests and take a read over WP:CSD. I have noticed several times today that you've been rapidly tagging and untagging your own requests, tagging requests that don't apply and you've failed to notify any of the creators of your request. See below:
 * USA Pan - no notification
 * Sushant Pujari (actor) - no notification
 * Amy Pence-Brown - no notification
 * Nathan Clements - no notification
 * National Youth Concert Band of Great Britain - no notification

And this is just in the last few hours. Additionally G4 only applies when the article is the same as one deleted through AFD, not just one that has been deleted before as you tagged at Amy Pence-Brown. Praxidicae (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. In the future i will notify creators when suggesting their articles for speedy deletion. Krakkos (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

P45 Day
Krakkos, thanks for the prompt review on new page P45 day. I should be making further edits to this page as there's a few refinements to be made. Yes, people do get so drunk they don;t know what they're doing on Black Eye Friday such that they lay themselves open to disciplinary action when they return to work in the New Year!!!Mackem Beefy (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Mitch Chilson - speedy decline
Hi Krakkos, I'm just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion nomination of Mitch Chilson because the current version is substantially different than the version which was deleted 5+ years ago. If you feel the topic is not notable, AfD is the way to go with this one. All the best,  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Acholonu Stanley chigozie, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit?
This looks odd, changed the subclade and the used image uploaded by same account. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this edit is suspicious. However, there is not enough evidence at the moment to make any firm conclusions. Krakkos (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I predicted! Just another Tirgil34's sock plus dozens: Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34/Archive --Wario-Man (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! Nice prediction! Krakkos (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He stalks us and watches our edits. I edited this article and then he immediately dropped his typical "everything was/is Turkic/Turkish" on talk page. See also: My edit summary was before SPI (another prediction). Please add this new pattern + diffs to his LTA page. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will certainly update the LTA when i have time. His sock Hirabutor is still active on Wiktionary and making attacks. Also see these attacks through his Youtube account. Krakkos (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why Wiktionary admins don't block him? What's the point of allowing him to do stuff like that? --Wario-Man (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Tirgil34 was globally locked on October 27, and Hirabutor made his most recent attack on November 5. The Hirabutor edit must therefore have been a violation of his global lock. Krakkos (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please do something about it? I'm not really familiar with other WPs and Wiki projects and their noticeboards. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will see what i can do. Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All of his socks should be blocked globally. There is not reason that he continues editing with his old and new socks. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Krakkos (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and submitted reports. Seriously why his accounts are still open on Wiktionary? It's really odd that Wiktionary editors are aware of his LTA and SPI case, but at the same time they're OK with him. They even know that he has multiple sockpuppets on their project but they still tolerate his disruptive edits and they interpret his personal attacks as normal stuff. I will never ever post something on that lawless project again. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tolerance shown to Tirgil34 at Wiktionary is ridiculous. Krakkos (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that user is an admin. Seriously?! --Wario-Man (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He is... I was also quite surprised when i noticed that. Krakkos (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No wonder why that project has some serious issues. Treating personal attacks, disruptive edits, and sockpuppetry as normal contributions and acceptable behavior. It's more sad that he ignored/ignores your replies, LTA and SPI pages. If a similar incident happens on EN WP, the involved admin(s) may even lose their administrator user right. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fortunately Tirgil34 is globally locked now, so there are other ways to deal with him. Krakkos (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Germanic peoples
Just so you know, I am in general support of your ideas about the Germanic peoples page. Not sure what's going on with a certain editor, but that person is making sweeping, if not utterly erroneous claims and observations that are unfounded and nonsensical. The article is well-written and thoroughly researched with a majority of the scholarship drawn from leading experts—something I would know very well (I'll leave it at that). Keep up the good fight. --Obenritter (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words of encouragement. I means a lot. I agree that several arguments put forth at Talk:Germanic peoples are nonsensical. Germanic peoples is indeed a well-written and thoroughly researched article. Any solution provided to reduce its length must ensure the preservation of this quality content. Krakkos (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Krakkos---I have to confess, I am not especially pleased with some of your recent additions to this page. You are adding an inordinate amount of content from a source that is not all that recent; namely, Francis Owens. Also, many of the additions should be consolidated into paragraphs and not singular stand-alone sentences—one after another—as this reads very disjointed otherwise. What you have essentially proven is that this page likely needs to be split, as much of this content is so "culture" specific and detailed that I am a bit averse to its addition to the article. You shortened it recently only to ADD a ton of information that is less relevant than much of what you deleted. What was the point of this precisely? To be honest...I am now losing interest in this article altogether, as I don't have time to police it given all this Lone-Ranger behavior. To be honest, I am experiencing a loss of interest in Wikipedia and other things too; particularly given the depraved madness and self-interested activities of people whose narcissism and/or agendas are cumulatively pushing me to the ledge.--Obenritter (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. These are very valid points. I intend to address those concerns in my edits to the article in the near future. Your contributions to the article have been great. Please reconsider your intentions to abandon it. Wish you all the best. Krakkos (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the new round of editing shows some of the same tendencies which I was trying to explain. I wish I'd had more time to explain, but it is a busy season. I think we over-simplfy things and weight them strangely. Although indeed some parts feel very bloated (red hair, Y haplogroups, Germanic languages, Afrikaners) ideas like shortening and splitting the article can make this worse, not better. But better to talk on the article talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Early Germanic culture ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Early_Germanic_culture check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Early_Germanic_culture?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Portuguese, Dung, Ornament and Mantle
 * Early Germanic warfare ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Early_Germanic_warfare check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Early_Germanic_warfare?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Divide and conquer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Germanic cuisine has been nominated for discussion
Category:Germanic cuisine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

the general culture of KRAKKOS
Do you think romance is an etnie ?? LOL. You must think or read before deleting articles--81.67.166.149 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Caorongjin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, International Journal of Public Theology, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Caorongjin (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was an accident! Re-marked as patrolled. --Caorongjin (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Dutch philosophy
Hi, Krakkos. You categorized Dutch philosophy as Germanic philosophy and while I'm not sure whether you meant to do so from perhaps a philological or linguistic perspective or from a Hegelian point of view, as a Dutch scholar in Dutch philosophy I cannot agree with it. Wikipedia is, first, not a Hegelian encyclopedia and, second, it is in no other sense established that Dutch philosophy has to be or even could be considered 'Germanic' (in whatever sense). So I will have to undo your edits and I request you come with decent sources that do establish such a categorization, but I don't think such sources exist. Have a nice day, Eissink (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC).
 * P.S. I think the same goes for Danish philosophy, but I'm not familiar enough with that tradition to undo your categorization there. Eissink (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Hi, Eissink. While looking at source material it seemed to me that Germanic philosophy was a distinct concept, defined by one scholar as "philosophies whose authors are members of the Germanic nations in the modern period". This concept appears to have been introduced by Hegel. As the Dutch people are generally defined as Germanic, it appeared to me that Dutch philosophy fell under this concept. If you disagree as an expert in the field, feel free to edit accordingly. Krakkos (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hegel's distinction is one in time, in the sense of development: basically (if i'm not mistaken) he calls all modern (Western) philosophy 'Germanic', so that includes French, Spanish, Russian, British etc. etc. Therefore I think Category:Germanic philosophy is undesirable. Perhaps there is a place on en.wiki to discuss philosophical topics like this among those interested? Eissink (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC).
 * I haven't edit much on topics related to philosophy, so i'm not sure where on en.wiki one would find a suitable venue to discuss such subjects. Krakkos (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found it: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Maybe I will bring it up there, later, if I have time. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Nice find. Good luck! Krakkos (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have decided to have the Category for discussion. I thought you would get a notification, but apparently not, so. See the discussion page. Greetings, Eissink (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you for notifying me, Eissink. Your arguments in favor of deleting Germanic philosophy make certain sense. However, i consider your nomination of Early Germanic philosophy to have been unfortunate. This category was not created upon Hegelian theory. It was based upon works on the early Germanic way of tought such as The Germanic People by Francis Owen. Early Germanic culture had a distinct and notable way of thought, as exemplified in works such as Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál. This category is useful as a help for Wikipedia readers to learn more about the subject. Krakkos (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for Reviewing
My dear friend, User:Krakkos, Thank you for reviewing the articles created by me.DMySon (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure to do so. Thank you for your productive work! Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Feasting, A Chieftain&#39;s Great Hall.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Feasting, A Chieftain&. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:
 * File:Mixed Cavalry Infantry Action.jpg
 * File:Oath Taking And Gift Giving.jpg
 * File:The Battle of Campus Mauriacus, AD 451.jpg
 * File:The Goths Cross The Danube, AD 376.jpg
 * File:Weapons Production, A Frankish Workshop, 6th Century.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border: 3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAE0; padding: 0.1em 0.2em; height: auto; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Krakkos , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Wario-Man (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
 * Happy New Year to you too! Krakkos (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Feasting, A Chieftain&#39;s Great Hall.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Feasting, A Chieftain&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mixed Cavalry Infantry Action.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mixed Cavalry Infantry Action.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oath Taking And Gift Giving.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Oath Taking And Gift Giving.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Battle of Campus Mauriacus, AD 451.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Battle of Campus Mauriacus, AD 451.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Goths Cross The Danube, AD 376.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Goths Cross The Danube, AD 376.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Weapons Production, A Frankish Workshop, 6th Century.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Weapons Production, A Frankish Workshop, 6th Century.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Karasuk culture.png
Thanks for uploading File:Karasuk culture.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dnieper–Donets culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wild pig ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnic peoples ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Germani check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Germani?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is now fixed. Krakkos (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop working on the new Germani article until you have justified it
Krakkos, please show some good faith cooperative behavior and stop creating this POVfork while we get a plan agreed. The original article still exists, and the discussions on its talk page show that you are knowingly working in a disruptive way by having deleted chunks of it as an excuse to create this article. We still have no agreed definition of what the distinct topics are for the two articles in the future and you know we need that, because you know that has been a controversy and source of these problems. Please make an effort to break the cycle and to get a proper rationale on record. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to trick everyone. See WP:POVFORK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied to a similar comment at Talk:Germani. See Talk:Germanic peoples and Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Krakkos (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No you clearly have not given any sort of sensible and convincing reply. Just posting a couple of words is not a good faith reply. Furthermore ALL replies to you have been NEGATIVE, and yet you are continuing!! I repeat please stop trying to push through these major controversial changes. First there needs to be a single agreed direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss this is at Talk:Germani. Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In your edsums you previously said the proper thing to do was an adf, which is of course tendentious (and completely different). Actually there are several "proper" places we can discuss it, but you are refusing to use ANY of them. I have decided to handle it as a merge proposal and the discussion (as noted in the template) is on the Germanic peoples article which is the parent/mirror article with more people watching it. (Indeed you created this rejected split off secretly.) Coming back to this talk page though, it is the correct place to contact you personally to make suggestions about changes you should make to your own personal approach to editing, which you have succeeded in making a subject of vital importance to anyone interested in these topics. You should freeze work on this controversial mirror article. All feedback you have had on it was strongly negative. You are making articles worse all the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

please edit articles only in a way which respects EXISTING titles, structures, etc
Krakkos, including a section about Germanic languages in the Ethnonyms sections, or already treating the Germanic peoples are sometimes in your edits (including wikilinks in other articles), etc etc, is not on. Stop it please. If you want to change sections, titles, etc then certainly in the case of Germanic peoples you are being called upon very clearly to explain your ideas first, so you need to do that. It is more generally necessary for practical common sense reasons that we all work in the same direction, of course. That is very hard if you work against everyone on purpose and REFUSE to nominate a plan despite making massively disruptive changes that you know to be controversial and in conflict with WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues related to Germanic peoples should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is related to your editing behaviour.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're consistently removing sources and information I'm adding about Germanic languages and Germanic culture at Germanic peoples as being beyond the scope of the article. I started an RfC on the question, in which every participating editor, including yourself, agrees that information and sources on Germanic languages and Germanic culture is within the scope of the article. In the spirit of the consensus of the RfC, i reinserted scholarly sources, but you're STILL removing them. It's about time for you to re-examine your own editing behavior. Krakkos (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Germanic [language]" is not an ethnonym Krakkos, which is where you put that new section. Furthermore it is made of duplicated material, and as you recently pointed out yourself this article is getting long, and the reason, as I pointed out, is for a big part because of these edits which randomly insert the same information into multiple places without any reference to the article structure. This has been a long term problem, and as this is one of the only articles where you go beyond category, link and list editing, this editing history is very problematic. Before you made Germanic an ethnonym, you made Barbarian an ethnonym! Please look at the articles you are editing and fit your work with others, or else announce your ideas first on a talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An ethnonym is defined as "a name applied to a given ethnic group". We have an article titled Germanic peoples about "a category of ethnic groups", so Germanic is their primary ethnonym. This should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your entry was for Germanic as a language family and contained duplicated information. The ethnonym already contains a section for Germani, which, as the opening says, can be translated as Germanic peoples. We do not need to make separate sections for every plural form or translation. Why on earth do I need to explain something like that though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My entry was for the Germanic peoples. See the citations from Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee and Edgar Charles Polomé. The term Germanic is very recent, it does not equal to Germani, which translates as German. If you're opposed to having separate sections for Germanic and Germani, the proper course would have been to merge the sections, but you just removed everything about Germanic. Krakkos (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there was nothing worth keeping. Your edits never seem to take account of what is already in an article, and create constant duplication and artificial inflation. Sections you have been working on become unreadable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why aren't definitions by Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee and Edgar Charles Polomé of Germanic peoples worth keeping in the article on Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First let's get agreement about what the article(s) are about, and then about how they will be structured. If you are finding good quotes you'd like to use, instead of inserting them impulsively now, while basic things are unclear, collect them, for example on a draft in your sandbox. Frantically making massive, repetitive, point-making changes into random bits of the article now is not a good idea Krakkos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination of the edit history of this article shows that you're the one who's been making the largest amount of edits to the article in recent days. And that you edits are of a radical nature. If I'm not permitted to edit the article "while basic things are unclear", why are you? Krakkos (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if your count is correct but in any case I did not expect you to bring problems this far. I propose for now we both slow down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Krakkos (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples discussion

 * I wonder to what extent the solution chosen in Celts can serve as model for a way forward. However, it would be highly desirable to cite literature that demonstrates a comparable debate about the continuity between ancient Germanic peoples and medieval and modern Germanic-speaking ethnicities (the debate about the Celts being one that I personally find perplexing). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the Celts we also have the articles Celts (modern), Celtic nations and Names of the Celts. Many solutions for Germanic peoples are possible when looking at how the Celtic topics are covered at Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the first thing which must be determined by the community is which subjects that fall within the scope of Germanic peoples. That is the purpose of the RfC. The second thing which has to be determined by the community is which of these subjects constitutes the primary topic for term Germanic peoples. In my opinion this should be decided by what is written in reliable sources. Krakkos (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I created a title for this discussion. Feel free to reverse that Krakkos, but I come here taking the section seriously because you directed others including me to look at this (on Doug Weller's talk page). Comparisons to Celts and also to other linguistic topics have of course been made before. Arguably, ethnolinguistic topics are one of the worst parts of Wikipedia in my honest opinion, so referring to other groups does not necessarily help. One of the problems (let's put it on the table) is amateur interest partly triggered by new DNA testing work including commercial tests to test whether you have viking genes etc. Secondly there are some special problems with the term Germanic, including the beliefs which were widespread among scholars up until WW2 and even after, which scholars now reject - but making it difficult they don't all agree in how far to reject them. Those old beliefs are the ones people often get when they google.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, we do not have to base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but what do you feel that reliable sources imply about what the core topic should be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparing to Celts
Just for notes. I think I think the imperfect overlap issue is a critical one for Germanic peoples, that Krakkos should address before taking more actions? Historically, many editors of Germanic peoples have wanted to treat the two highly overlapping concepts in one article. If we want to convince them a split can work then the onus is on the person demanding the split to convince everyone of how it can avoid overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Celts (modern), is not dissimilar in aim to articles such as Germanic-speaking Europe (broad modern), and Germans (narrow modern)?
 * Celtic nations looks to me at first sight like it should be merged with Celts (modern). (It is about modern nations, divided into modern nation states, like the other one.)
 * Names of the Celts addresses an issue specific to the Celtic topics. I honestly have my doubts about whether this article is needed, as it is more or less duplicated in related articles such as Celts.
 * Celts seems to be quite settled as an article focused on ancient peoples without the controversy caused at Germanic peoples caused by people wanting to mix ancient and modern. At first sight this topic also does not have the challenge coming from the imperfect overlap between linguistically defined peoples, and the peoples as they were described by contemporaries.

See this for the lulz
This guy is so predictable; zero creativity. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha! Krakkos (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Crash course in the Germanic peoples dispute

 * Chronology
 * For more than thirteen consecutive years (2005 to 2019), Germanic peoples was defined on Wikipedia as being about peoples identified as speakers of Germanic languages.
 * This definition has fundamentally shaped the body of the article Germanic peoples, and the way the article is integrated into the rest of Wikipedia.


 * In April 2019, without any prior warning on the talk page, Andrew Lancaster fundamentally changes the scope of the article Germanic peoples from being primarily about peoples speaking Germanic languages to being about peoples "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples".
 * Andrew Lancaster provides no new sources when changing the topic.
 * In fact, the change of topic is in direct contradiction to the source which is used.
 * Andrew Lancaster provides no edit summary for the change of topic.
 * Andrew Lancaster does not refer to any consensus for this drastic change of topic.
 * Andrew Lancaster's change of topic is opposed by Florian Blaschke, but Andrew Lancaster successfully edit wars to get his will.
 * In ensuing discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 7, i also express opposition to the change of topic, but the discussion comes to nothing, and the determination of Andrew Lanncaster to edit war ensures that the article topic is changed.


 * In early September 2019, i insert a citation by Edward Arthur Thompson at the article Germanic peoples, in which he defines Germanic peoples. This source is removed by Andrew Lancaster with the explanation that "this is not what this article is about".
 * Later in September 2019, i create the article Germanic peoples (modern).
 * Germanic peoples (modern) is soon nominated for deletion. Andrew Lancaster votes delete, calling it "a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP". A large majority votes merge, and the decision becomes to make it a redirect to Germanic peoples.


 * On 16 January 2020, i merge a number of sources about peoples speaking Germanic languages, from Germanic peoples (modern) into Germanic peoples. These sources include scholars such as Edward Arthur Thompson, Francis Owen and Paul Robert Magocsi.
 * On 07:29 17 January 2020, these sources are removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that they are "sources about another topic (speakers of Germanic languages) handled in other articles" and a "deliberate confusion between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages using inappropriate sources".
 * On 10:51 17 January 2020, i initiate an RfC to determine if information on peoples speaking Germanic languages are within the scope of the article..
 * In that RfC it soon becomes clear that there is unanimous agreement, including by Andrew Lancaster and myself, that information and sources people speaking Germanic languages is indeed within the scope of the article.
 * On On 11:29 20 January 2020, encouraged by the sentiment in the RfC, i insert quality information and sources on the relationship between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages.
 * On 12:08 20 January 2020, this content is removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that the content "does not fit here".


 * On 10:18 17 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster removes a whole chunk of sourced information from Germanic peoples, under the rationale "shortening".
 * On 13:13 17 January 2020, i create the article Germani.
 * This is in order to preserve the quality information Andrew Lancaster has just removed, and to have a clearinghouse for information related to the etymology of Germany, Germanic peoples, Germania etc.
 * On 18 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster suggests that Germani be merged into Germanic peoples.
 * On 20 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster block the addition of information on the term Germani at the article Germanic peoples, citing an "article length concern".


 * The remarkable double-standard of Andrew Lancaster
 * Sources
 * When i attempt to add reliably sourced information to Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster removes it as based on "inappropriate sources", "unsourced assertions", or "not relevant to recent trends"
 * When i request Andrew Lancaster to attribute the information he's adding to reliable sources, he refuses to do so and replies: "Who cares? Why is this important? What is your point?", and adds that the information he's adding does "not have to match individual sources. They are editing decisions."
 * Consensus
 * When i request Andrew Lancaster to point to the "editing decisions" which justifies his edits, he refuses to do so and accuses me of obsessing about "the past".
 * When i add information which warrants inclusion per an unanimous agreement in an RfC, he removes it as being without consensus.
 * Content relevance
 * (1) When i insert a source (Edward Arthur Thompson) about peoples speaking Germanic languages at the article Germanic peoples, he removes it with the rationale "this is not what this article is about".
 * (1) When i create an article to cover this subject which Andrew Lancaster has previously identified as beyond the scope of Germanic peoples, he wants it deleted as a "content fork".
 * (2) When i create an article Germani, Andrew Lancaster wants to have it merged into Germanic peoples.
 * (2) When i add information about Germani to Germanic peoples, this addition is blocked by Andrew Lancaster, who cites an "article length concern".

Krakkos (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking and answering questions
 * Andrew Lancaster asks me "what the core topic should be".
 * I answer the question in a straightforward manner. In return i request Andrew Lancaster to say what he considers to be the core topic.
 * In his reply, Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer the question. Instead he asks me to make a "proposal about the best way to divide up the topic".
 * In return i make a proposal about how the topic should be divided. I request him once again to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
 * Andrew Lancaster again refuses to answer his own questions. He replies with the phrase: "I'm not really not sure what your point is", and accuses me of "turning the same question around... saying I should answer first?"
 * I again request Andrew Lancaster to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
 * Again Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer his own questions. He accuses me of "not trying to think about what people are saying", and of "asking the wrong questions". He now says that the core topic of an article "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness".

example corrections in case it helps
I stop at the RFC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * April 29. Krakkos describes it as a major article change when I mentioned that Germani were contrasted with Gauls, and also in conflict with a source (Heather). In fact it is neither a major article change, nor in conflict with that source or any other, nor with previous versions, nor talk page discussions. Heather : "Romans learned to distinguish precisely between the Germans and the Celts, a distinction that is made with great clarity by Julius Caesar."
 * Dispute with Florian Baschke depicted as same discussion, but it was about a change of one word: are -> were. The context of the sentence is about Roman era peoples. That does not mean I have blocked discussion of later Germanic speakers in other parts of the article.
 * The discussion Krakkos then describes as "ensuing" was not the same, and had actually begun months earlier. [ADDED: I also notice right at the end the are->were change is discussed in an additional part, many months later (Sept), as something in the past.]
 * The first mentioned Thompson quote which was removed was about language phylogeny and placed between sentences about the Roman era peoples.
 * The second accusation of me removing Thompson (and Owen etc), is NOT a deletion of material from those authors, but material from low quality sources which were part of an enormous block of footnotes (not article text) which was in essence meant to DISAGREE with the article text in the lead (to show it was wrong?).
 * The third accusation of me removing Thompson etc, was, as mentioned in the real edsum, concerned also with duplication which is a major concern with Krakkos edits, also mentioned by other editors.

Core topic of Germanic peoples
Krakkos, we do not have to base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but what do you feel that reliable sources imply about what the core topic should be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster - WP:NOR states that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." I believe WP:NOR applies to titles, definitions as well as every other material on Wikipedia. I do not just feel, I'm firmly convinced, that the majority of reliable sources considers speaking Germanic languages as the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples. Here are some examples of clear scholarly definitions of Germanic peoples:












 * I have now stated my position clearly, and provided the sources which forms the basis for my position. Could you please do the same? What do you consider the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? Krakkos (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, no, in fact you still have not made a proposal about the best way to divide up the topic or topics with specific article titles, although I have asked over and over. You seem unable to ever say something in a direct way. Concerning my own preferences, I have not been pretending when I have asked for feedback so that we can get one way of working, as long as it can be explained how it avoids obvious problems like POVFORKING, etc. But putting those two things aside, the correct policy page is WP:AT, titles working a bit different than normal content:
 * Just for example, and we know it is just an example, we discussed this one a few times (Heather, p.5)
 * And an obvious complication is that unlike you and I, who've done our job and looked at a range of recent sources, many of these writers, at least when they wrote, assumed that the Germanic-speaking peoples in the Roman era has a perfect overlap with the Germani. If we both believed that we would have no problem. Nevertheless one option we do have available is to handle both topics in one article, because the overlap in our sources is extremely high - with the topics often being treated as the same.
 * Concerning how to choose what to for example mention first in an article for example, should we continue to handle these highly overlapping topics in one article, I don't know of any criteria apart from editing judgement. For example a lot of articles work through a topic on a chronological basis, or a logical basis starting from how a concept developed, and working towards more advanced debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster - This discussion is not about the title of the article Germanic peoples, it's about the content of the article Germanic peoples. You didn't ask me about "the best way to divide up the topic", you asked me what i feel the "core topic" of the article should be. I have now answered that question. You have so far not answered this question. With regards to dividing the topic, i think that information on the Roman term Germani and inhabitants of the region they called Germania can be placed in the article Germania. There is no need to transform the topic of Germanic peoples into a duplication of Germania. Now could you please answer your own questions: What do you consider the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? How do you want to divide the topic? Krakkos (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am really not sure what your point is. Aren't you just turning the same question around (which title goes with which content) and saying I should answer first? I am saying that (a) the sources don't all treat these terms the exact same way, meaning we need some pre-agreements and a structured way of handling this, and (b) a simpler more stable structure within articles, and indeed the group of articles, that everyone can then edit in a way which won't constantly create chaos. Such situations are common on Wikipedia, and as mentioned solutions tend to come from simple structures. The talk pages and my new drafting page show me working with ideas. The chronologically original concept can be important for explanations, but does that make it "primary defining"? I am not sure editors always need to argue about "primary defining" in such cases. But anyway the way it seems to me, you are the one whose comments and edits (article splits etc) appear to indicate a strong position about what you want. Is that a misunderstanding?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, Todd still seems to write "Germans". Wolfram's book in English also says Germans even though it says we shouldn't. I presume this is because in German he was writing "Germanen".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're not sure what my point is. Read what's written in bold text. You asked me two questions of fundamental importance to solving this dispute. I answered. I've now asked you twice, and you've yet to answer the questions. So i'm asking again: What do you consider the primary defining characteristic (the "core topic") of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? How do you want to divide the topic? Krakkos (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are just shouting again, and not trying to think about what people are saying to you. You are asking the wrong questions, and getting stuck all the time. As I wrote, in a case like this the concept of a "primary defining concept" is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness. We have strongly overlapping concepts, not necessarily a hierarchy of concepts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to think about what you've been saying to others. You asked me "what the core topic should be". When i ask you back, you say the core topic "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness", This entire controversy revolves around what the "core topic" of the article should be, and this is the right question. Why won't you answer it? Krakkos (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, "primary defining" means "core" in this case? I thought you were talking now about the question of how to write about the two overlapping topicz in one article, which is the historical situation and my interpretation of what most editors still want, and also what I am working on, as you know. Apparently you are still proposing to split the article? You can see above that my answer is that I don't feel any need to have a strong preference about article title. I remain open to discussion about concrete proposals to change the article topic or split the article up. But you have made no such proposals? I guess I am missing something. As the person pushing for change, don't you need to explain? On my side, I've not pushed for title change, but explained my concerns, over and over. My aim is a more stable and better-made article, and the avoidance of too many over-lapping articles. I know from the past that without work on a logical structure no one will be happy. I also see article fission as a major cause of bad articles on Wikipedia. So I am very cautious about sudden changes, especially splitting changes, but not necessarily pushing any particular article title solution. I believe all or most editors share my concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as i understand it, you're essentially advocating the merge of Germania into Germanic peoples, and then switching the scope of Germanic peoples into being about inhabitants of Germania. This is a big change. I'm opposed to it. I think the "core topic" of Germanic peoples should be preserved the way it has been since Wikipedia was created more than ten years ago. That topic is peoples speaking Germanic languages, practicing Germanic paganism, following Germanic law etc. This is how the topic is generally defined in reliable sources. I think Germania is a distinct and notable topic, and that it should be kept as a separate article. I think Germania should be the primary destination for information on the etymology of the name Germani and information on inhabitants of Germania. This is my proposal. Clear and simple. What is yours? Krakkos (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was really what you were asking me? OK, that I can answer. I have made no proposal about that merge with Germania yet. I only said I was considering whether it was worth discussion based on how my draft writing goes, and what feedback it gets. (If it becomes obvious that Germanic peoples needs discussion of Germania that covers everything in the other article, then it is policy telling us to merge them.) But I have no proposal, except that I want to avoid overlapping articles, articles that annoy people because they seem incomplete, and also unstructured articles. These problems have knock-on effects which make everything difficult for everyone, and keep articles bad and editors annoyed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright so you have no proposals. What about the `"core topic" of Germanic peoples? You asked about what i felt about the "core topic". This question has been answered by me. You have previously removed substantial information from Germanic peoples with the rational that this information outside of the "topic". What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was really what you were asking me? OK, that I can answer. I have made no proposal about that merge with Germania yet. I only said I was considering whether it was worth discussion based on how my draft writing goes, and what feedback it gets. (If it becomes obvious that Germanic peoples needs discussion of Germania that covers everything in the other article, then it is policy telling us to merge them.) But I have no proposal, except that I want to avoid overlapping articles, articles that annoy people because they seem incomplete, and also unstructured articles. These problems have knock-on effects which make everything difficult for everyone, and keep articles bad and editors annoyed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright so you have no proposals. What about the `"core topic" of Germanic peoples? You asked about what i felt about the "core topic". This question has been answered by me. You have previously removed substantial information from Germanic peoples with the rational that this information outside of the "topic". What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have said that I am trying to work with the old article aim, which I understand to be the consensus, of having an article which handles the two over-lapping topics in one article. I am not proposing a chance. If you are suggesting I need to pick one topic over the other, I have mentioned both my aims, and the relevant policy, above. I understand you did not find that an interesting topic for this discussion, but it is still there. Does that not answer you?
 * I do not believe any question that might fit your description above ("This question", whatever that refers to) has been answered by you? My apologies, but can you give a diff? Are you talking about the idea of merging with Germania? But this was not a question of anyone, and saying you are against it before anyone has put forward any case is not really useful. Furthermore, the implication is that you want me to answer the same question, but that makes no sense in this context?? My apologies for not being able to understand you.
 * Deletions of duplicated materials, webs of footnotes trying to argue against something on the talk page, materials placed into wrong sections etc, might have given a wrong impression, as mentioned here, for example. I am trying to remedy any concerns with the drafting exercise, as I suppose you know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked me what i consider the core topic of Germanic peoples. I consider the primary core topic to be peoples speaking Germanic languages. Here is the diff for the original statement.
 * I have not been able to discern what you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples. Could you provide a diff? Could you tell me again what you consider the core topic?
 * Which "two over-lapping topics" are you referring to? Krakkos (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are still proposing to keep trying to split articles? I think that is a bad idea, at least as I understand your current approach. The post you refer to which is just a series of quotes is not a clear proposal, let alone an explanation of how it would work. Apparently you instead think the quotes give you some kind of right to demand a split on a policy technicality but that is not the case, as I have explained. Instead, as I've said over and over, a critical thing would have been for you to explain how to avoid the multiplication of overlapping low quality and POVfork articles. But you do not seem to want to ever address those serious concerns. (Frankly, your editing record seems to show that you don't even see them as problems.) So for now, as I explained, I am not thinking in terms of which core subject I want to argue for, but how to structure one article which covers both "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". I don't know of any other reasonable and policy-consistent proposal at this time and I think this approach, when done properly, can be executed much better. One particular area I certainly want to improve is to get the right structure to be able to handle BOTH topics better. Is there any reason you think this is impossible to achieve already?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that Germania and Germanic peoples be kept split. This debate has never been about article structure. It has been about article topic. You asked me about the core topic of Germanic peoples, and i answered it. What do you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? Krakkos (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which debate? Let me know if you are prepared for a more constructive discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This debate. Have you even read the title of this section? Or the title of the the RfC which reignited this debate? I'm always prepared for a constructive discussion. You say you want a composite article about "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". For the sake of having a constructive discussion, i would like to know what you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples". Krakkos (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not much of a debate, and the RFC was ridiculously unclear too. Over the last few days you and I have discussed the two overlapping meanings of "Germanic peoples" and the various sourceable terms for them, maybe 50 times? If you want people to take you seriously, I suggest continuously pretending that when it suits you you can't comprehend other editors, written sources, or WP policy, is probably not the best approach. Demonstrate some WP:COMPETENCE. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4 a. states that an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in disruptive editing. Given your proclaimed constructiveness and competence, it should be an easy task for you to answer two basic and essential questions: What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? Krakkos (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You think those links are about having to answer circular rounds of un-ending questions which other editors demand of you on their own talk page? Again, whatever case you want to make, either make it to the rest of the community, or keep out of future editing in this group of articles where careful coordination is going to be important to finally get stability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked you to "answer circular rounds of un-ending questions". I'm just asking you to answer the same question you came to my talk page to ask me. I answered this question. I've asked you this question a number of times and you have still failed to answer it. What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And your connected action is here, posting on User:Doug Weller's page. Anyone might think you are looking for a way to get what you want to link up real-world articles to your walled garden of Germanic alternate-reality articles and categories, by catching me slipping up on a technicality. I hope all your editing gets a lot of attention. It deserves it. I think some admins would block you just for the obvious dishonest intentions of that post on its own.
 * But just to say it one more time: I asked you about what titles and topics you wanted when you were (openly, for a while) pushing for an article split. I have not been pushing for any such change. The article has had two 90% overlapping main topics for a long time because that is what editors wanted. I believe that can work, and I want to try to make it work. Will you let it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not "90% overlapping main topics". Germanic peoples (Germanic-speakers) and inhabitants of Germania are quite different subjects. As Peter Heather says:
 * Mixing those two topics will not work. See WP:NAD. We already have the article Germania, so mixing does topics is not necessary either. They each have their own articles The fact that you have been removing content reliably sourced to E. A. Thompson, Edgar C. Polomé, Peter Heather, Francis Owen, Malcolm Todd and others as "off-topic" confirms that mixing those subjects will not work. A "core topic" must be decided. You asked me about the "core topic" of Germanic peoples, and i answered. What about you? What do you consider to be the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As you know very well, because repeated over and over, I would like to try to handle the two over-lapping topics together, like all our sources including Heather do. It is great that now you remember what the two agreed topics are! Of course, like Heather, good clear explanations of the bits that are not perfect in the overlap are needed in appropriately prominent places. This is why I am carefully asking feedback on a new lead and structure, and want to get rid of the duplication and general mess which is a major concern of your colleagues. I think every other involved editor, with all their diverse opinions about other things, seems to also want this to go ahead? BTW I think this is the closest you have ever come to explaining what you want, rather than just splitting the article without warning, and writing misleading posts. Do you have anything else to say in favour of it apart from BS stories about "removing content"? Why would you be so desperate to even let other editors TRY to make it work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpret you as considering Germanic-speakers and inhabitants of Germania as "the two over-lapping topics". Is this interpretation correct? If no,t could you please enlighten me? Krakkos (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Close, but I think it is better to say Germanic-speakers and people described by Romans as Germani. Eburones were Germani for Caesar (and also Gauls I'm afraid) while the Volcae and Boii were not. By the time of Tacitus it becomes fuzzy whether a Gaulish people in Germania would be called Germanic. These are the tricky bits, but the need for careful handling of these matters will not go away by having more articles. In fact, the more articles, the worse their quality will be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this. I consider being Germanic-speaking as more of a core topic for Germanic peoples than being described by the Romans as Germani. I think the latter topic can be covered at Germania. I interpret you as considering both topics to be equally suitable as the core topic for Germanic peoples. Is this interpretation correct? If not, could you please enlighten me? Krakkos (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for questions which do not deny all previous discussion, though I hope you are leading somewhere constructive. The answer to this one is indeed yes. The proposed plan of action is to first work on making Germanic peoples do this job which most of its involved editors apparently think is possible and desirable. I see no reason to believe it is impossible. It seems quite a popular idea on the article talk page.
 * Trying to copy or adapt most of the article into Germania would create duplicate articles, and mean having to do the tricky bits in two articles instead of one, and would in no way help remove the grey areas are part of reality and in our sources. So why would this be proposed?
 * If Germania is 100% overlapping once Germanic peoples is made to cover what everyone wants, that would be a new discussion. If it would be a good idea, then good, if not then not. Hopefully good Wikipedia editors will not be thinking of setting up strategies to get more or less articles, but will be thinking of having good articles which do not have too much overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Goths, Vandals, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons did not live in Germania. According to Herwig Wolfram, Guy Halsall and Walter Goffart, those peoples were not considered Germani. If we are to make Germania and Germanic peoples to be "100% overlapping", that will require removing all information about Goths, Vandals, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons from the article Germanic peoples. I think that is a bad idea. Why can't we just keep the topics of Germania and Germanic peoples separate? Nobody else seems to consider the overlap between those two articles to be problematic. Merging the topic of Germania into the topic of Germanic peoples creates more problems than it solves (ambiguity in particular). See WP:NAD. A certain degree of overlap can rarely be avoided. Krakkos (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would work with either approach if there is strong agreement one of them, but...
 * 1. I really think you under-estimate the overlap in practice. To make sense of either of the "two" topics, you need to explain the other. So each article would have to explain the other. I really have tried to think this through.
 * 2. Personally my experience when projects are big is that you should plan a path with different optional branches based on what could go wrong. I believe that even if the long run aim is to split into two topics, this will be easier if we first get a much more tightly structured single article. (In practice I fear that trying to get a real stable consensus on a split solution is a bridge too far just because of human nature. But if there is any chance at all, it will be when there is a structured presentation of the information to be split first.)
 * To put it another way: if we split first and try to clean it up later, you will find editors permanently adding and subtracting from the two articles based on different understandings. We would eventually need to come back to a discussion to define what we have and how we are going to break it up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The topics, "Germanic-speakers and people described by Romans as Germani" as you call it, are already split into Germania and Germanic peoples. If the split forces us to do some explaining, that is small price to pay in order to avoid ambiguity over the topic of an article. The problem of "editors permanently adding and subtracting from the two articles" has never been an issue. Krakkos (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly not. You are disconnecting from the believable again, I fear. No one sees the Germania#Population as the Germani article and your own recent editing shows this is simply a new argument you've come up with. Working out the explaining, that small or large price, is exactly what I am working on and which you are arguing against. Why not support that necessary first step to all possible bright futures? And unfortunately, editors such as yourself adding and moving materials and ruining the article structure so that it looks worse and worse and impedes good editors are the subject of numerous strong complaints by more editors than me. You should read your own talk page more.
 * ...Or perhaps I should just say: "Not everyone agrees with any of those statements, to say the least, so they are never going to be the basis of any major decision". We have to be practical. This is not a short or simple article, and the split versions would be more controversial. My proposal is to try something out which requires no circular debate, and it involves the same working out of the material which any proper split also absolutely requires before it can ever happen. Furthermore, overlapping articles are a serious problem. I know you don't care, but others see the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've previously consistently removed any content about Germanic-speaking peoples from the Germanic peoples article, stating that it is "another topic", that "language divisions should be handled elsewhere", and that "implied equation of linguistic and classical divisions not accepted anymore in field". Now you're suddenly insisting that the linguistic and classical divisions must topics of equal importance in the same article. Why the change of heart? Krakkos (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've previously consistently removed any content about Germanic-speaking peoples from the Germanic peoples article, stating that it is "another topic", that "language divisions should be handled elsewhere", and that "implied equation of linguistic and classical divisions not accepted anymore in field". Now you're suddenly insisting that the linguistic and classical divisions must topics of equal importance in the same article. Why the change of heart? Krakkos (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to keep tweaking my approach, or even changing it completely, but I think I've never been against including Germanic speaking peoples. I have tried to explain over and over that this is a misunderstanding, and I have shown that by looking at the examples you've pointed to that all/most such cases involve insertions of materials into the wrong places in articles, nearly always duplicated materials. Such impulsive, secretive, unorganized and uncooperative editing makes it difficult to avoid giving a wrong impression. In my frank opinion your editing style on its own explains nearly all WP's difficulties on these articles, continually ripping open the wounds we need to patch up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be complete I should also mention that in 2019 the specific debate about you demanding the "Germanic peoples by descent" lists was openly intertwined with your efforts to emphasize the linguistic definition above others. Defending against that long running push made it difficult to get balance, to say the least. Consider some of my past attempts to explain this: top of and within --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) [And of course here ]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is often easier to explain the importance of "getting a balance" and a "structure" in order to put together controversial sub-topics into a much less controversial (and therefore more stable) whole by demonstrating. Have you looked at my drafting for the article? I am working to integrate mention of all definitions, or proposed definitions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Germanic peoples
Krakkos you've started more RFCs suddenly and this is a really bad idea, as was the last one. None of them are designed to bring clarity about the issues currently needing clarity. Furthermore, I specifically asked you, as per WP norms in a situation like this, NOT to impulsively make new RFCs without prior discussion about what is being asked. And in the Germanic peoples case, you know very well that I have proposed to show using a draft how the old idea of combining linguistic and other ways of defining them into one more stable form. You've surely seen how much positive feedback there has been to this, and you've reacted to it yourself. Your new RFC, in contrast, assumes that the article needs to be split and that these "two" subjects must be split. You were asked several times to explain WHY you demand a split, given all the different attempts you have made over a long period, with various different explanations. It was therefore clearly made to disrupt the most promising efforts being made, and also to continue to distract from questions about what your real reason is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop doing article moves, merges and splits without prediscussion
Herules also happens to be a page with active talk page discussion and disagreements, involving you, now disconnected suddenly by you. Why would you do that? Especially in the context of so many complaints about exactly this type of significant edit being done without prediscussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion did not concern the title of the page. I recently added two sources on the Heruli from Peter Heather and the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. You removed these sources without any valid reason. I noticed in those sources that they were referred to as "Heruli" rather than "Herules", which was the title of the article. From Google Ngram it is clear that "Heruli" is the common name for them. So i made a WP:BOLD edit and moved it. Krakkos (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By your own explanation you added these tertiary sources into the middle of a lead sentence for trivial inappropriate reasons. It was part of a bigger campaign of similar edits. So why would these tertiary sources suddenly become the basis of a major decision like a name change, in a case where the article already has specialized sources in the body that you have now over-ruled?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather is just as much a specialist as Alexander Sarantis and Roland Steinacher. This is already being discussed at Talk:Heruli. There's no need to duplicate the discussion here. Krakkos (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Massive edits about a topic you know to be the topic of open disagreements is a bad idea, and so is massing of footnotes into leads
Krakkos, I know both of the above things have been said to you many times, not only by me. Not every edit in the sweep of Germanic articles you are now doing was the same but clearly the effort was being known quite consciously in connection with open discussions. You've also been asked before, most recently on Germania (not counting reactions to today's edits) not to overload leads with footnotes. It is especially bad to do this as part of any type of strategy connected to a disagreement on another article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Burgundians. Krakkos (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is about a specific change, not the massive sweep of similar edits adding thickets of poor sources into non controversial leads. Please stop doing that and review your interpretation of WP policy and norms. As was explained to you by another editor recently at Germania, and yet another now on Franks we do NOT overload leads with un-needed footnotes. Discussion of detailed sourcing is for the body. One source is enough normally for bits which need it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which "poor sources" are you referring to? Krakkos (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you insert any good sources for any good reasons? I think the exceptions will be those. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At the article Burgundians i added the following sources:
 * Which of them is "poor"? Krakkos (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? Why are you focusing on the Burgundians article? Read what I wrote please. I am clearly talking about the dozens of near identical edits you have made to dozens of article leads, filling them with tertiary referencing in mid-sentence, concerning non-controversial information. These are not making Wikipedia better. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing on the Burgundians article because of your comments at Talk:Burgundians. Which article do you want me to focus on? Krakkos (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are so many that I am not going to waste my time. I am very certain that you know what I mean. But one example I mentioned above is Franks, where you were reverted by . So all the ones like that. In Herules we are also having a problem where as you know this problem is present but also other issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Having been summoned here by ping . . . .) I am not sure what the bigger issue here is - my edit was entirely practical. I viewed the added references as misformatted overkill.  Listing four citations to document a single word is quite excessive, and giving full-sentence quotes just to show that each source used the word in question, but with text not otherwise distinctive or even addressing that characterization, is unhelpful.  Packing four citations as a bullet point list into a single footnote is bad practice that conflicted with the other footnoting on the page, and including in each template every possible parameter, many being both empty and irrelevant, just makes editors' jobs harder by burying the relevant bibliographical information in junk.  As such, I pared down to one single citation, removed the bullet pointing, and cut out all of the extraneous code. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which of them is "poor"? Krakkos (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? Why are you focusing on the Burgundians article? Read what I wrote please. I am clearly talking about the dozens of near identical edits you have made to dozens of article leads, filling them with tertiary referencing in mid-sentence, concerning non-controversial information. These are not making Wikipedia better. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing on the Burgundians article because of your comments at Talk:Burgundians. Which article do you want me to focus on? Krakkos (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are so many that I am not going to waste my time. I am very certain that you know what I mean. But one example I mentioned above is Franks, where you were reverted by . So all the ones like that. In Herules we are also having a problem where as you know this problem is present but also other issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Having been summoned here by ping . . . .) I am not sure what the bigger issue here is - my edit was entirely practical. I viewed the added references as misformatted overkill.  Listing four citations to document a single word is quite excessive, and giving full-sentence quotes just to show that each source used the word in question, but with text not otherwise distinctive or even addressing that characterization, is unhelpful.  Packing four citations as a bullet point list into a single footnote is bad practice that conflicted with the other footnoting on the page, and including in each template every possible parameter, many being both empty and irrelevant, just makes editors' jobs harder by burying the relevant bibliographical information in junk.  As such, I pared down to one single citation, removed the bullet pointing, and cut out all of the extraneous code. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That is also how I understand the norms of working on leads in WP. A similar remark was made to Krakkos a few days ago by on Germania.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The big difference is that the sources at Germania were already part of the body of the article. That's why Sifurboy felt justified in removing them. The quality sources (Peter Heather) you removed at Heruli were not part of the body, meaning that they were purged completely from the article. This is not in accordance with WP norms. Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Having also been summoned here by ping, I took a quick look at the edits in question. I have put notability templates on the three new academic's pages. Not all academics meet WP:GNG and neither do all authors, but that does not mean these do not - you just need to do some more work to show that they are notable by finding appropriate sources.


 * The summary of my edits on Germania look fine to me. Information does not need citing in the lead if it is cited in the main, and that was the case on Germania. So then I looked at Heruli and saw that there is now one (and just one) citation in the lead, and also that this same citation can be found against the same claim discussed in the main. I did not revert the edit as I don't watch that page and did not feel I should go barging in there. However I would recommend removing the citation from the lead. It is not needed there, and looks incongruous all on its own. In general I would recommend adding citations to the main wherever possible. Yet this is not a battle I win on every page I edit. Some leads are a mess, but where they are clean, it would be great if they could be kept clean. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, now I have to add that when in the midst of a content dispute, creating Wikipedia pages for the authors of sources one wants to cite , seemingly just to strengthen one's claim that their opinion is noteworthy, seems awfully WP:POINTy. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agricolae - These content disputes occurred at Burgundians and Heruli. The respective discussions are located at Talk:Burgundians and Talk:Heruli. The sources discussed there are from Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram. The scholars on which i created articles have not played any role in the editing dispute. I created articles on Peter S. Wells, John F. Drinkwater and R. Bruce Hitchner because i thought that would improve Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe useful for perspective and sourcing concerning Vienna, Toronto etc
--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ian Wood (comparing critique of Halsall to other perspectives): https://books.google.be/books?id=4X1pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA311
 * Halsall, containing criticism of Heather: https://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-we-need-barbarians.html
 * Thanks for these links. Was Halsall's article ever published, or was it merely a blogpost? Krakkos (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not actually sure, although in a sense a speech that was recorded is published, and for opinions of individual notable people we can use blogs if it is clear it is theirs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Positive remarks are always more fun to make: So far this seems to be evolving in a good way. I am sure some of the editors who know more might spot things, and the balance might be something people will want to discuss, but clearly this work needed to be done, and it is an interesting subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an interesting subject. If you have more content available on the perspectives of Halsall and others, feel free to share them with me. Krakkos (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of collecting back and forth accusations I noticed this one which could not be more direct: "there can be no doubt that these works have—in the most generous interpretation—been written sufficiently carelessly as to provide succour to far-right extremists". Halsall article p.518. Halsall really means that, and I know he mentioned it very often on his blog etc whenever Heather et al were willing to appear in public to compare the Roman "immigration crisis" to modern ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chunks of Halsall's argument go back it seems to Goffarts Ch 5 Romes Fall and After and I suspect you have not read through this original version of them. https://books.google.be/books?id=55pDIwvWnpoC&pg=PA111 This could be helpful for more articles? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

p.113 note 7 of Goffart: he seems time people called Goths Germani was in Spain, when Franks noticed the similarity of languages? Also notes that Paul the Deacon called Franks Gothic? These ideas don't seem to have spread very far yet, but show the difficulty of saying there are only two ways to define Germanic and non Germanic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That article by Halsall was very interesting. I added some of his more significant perspectives at relevant articles. Will check the theories of Goffart at a later time. Krakkos (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your final sentence has made Halsall's strong but careful accusation a little bit more strong. Have a look again? What did you think about User:Srnec's idea to combine coverage of the Toronto school? Not sure what the title would be. Is there a name for the debate overall? Traditionskern would maybe distort the perspective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Toronto School emerged as an outgrowth and response to the Vienna School. One alternative would be to merge all of it into the ethnogenesis article, but the debates between the two schools aren't just about ethnogenesis. If there had been a specific name for the debate that would be ideal title for such a combo-article, but i don't think such a name exists. Krakkos (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You could add the word "debate" but not sure that is enough. One thing Halsall mentions several times, I notice, is that he thinks Heather et al have to assume that the barbarians had a grand strategy. That is a criticism he feels to be important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The most interesting thing I just learned is that Goffart believes the Gothic language was in use in Hispania/Gallia in the 8th century. I wish he had provided a citation for "when the eighth-century Franks ... discovered the similarity of their respective languages". I am unaware of any positive evidence of the Gothic language in the Iberian peninsula (beyond personal names), although it is probably safe to assume that the Gothic liturgy was in use while Arianism was still the official religion. Not sure in any case why it took until the 8th century when they'd been living side by side since the 5th. Intriguing. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Halsall seems to read the claim as relating to similarities in names. We should be cautious of this, but as people reading the sources, it may be a lead to more remarks. I am not sure these specific comments of Goffart have been questioned. For his argument the important point is that the idea of anything unifying the Gothic peoples (as lumped together by Procopius) with other Germanic peoples was unknown until Carolingian times. But he often mentions Jordanes as a source used for the idea of a link to the tribes described by Tacitus, and he is seeing him as a source which was used by later scholars to justify various such proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tabiti a sock?
Your tagging of User:Tabiti here as a suspected sock of User:Tirgil34 is not supported by any SPI findings. I'd suggest you undo the tag unless you can get confirmation. I am following up on a question from User:Orientls. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tabiti is certainly a sock of Tirgil34. The only edit of Tabiti was the creation of the article Tabiti on May 16, 2015. This edit is virtually identical to one made by Tirgil34 sock Dashte Qom at Scythian religion on September 8, 2014. It is similar to the creation of the article Tabitu by Tirgil34 sock Greczia on July 12, 2012. It would be helpful if an administrator could place a proper tag on Tabiti per WP:DUCK. Krakkos (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Heather
On the Vienna School of History article I see reference to Heather supposedly criticizing Halsall for being biased because of money he got from the European Science Foundation? It comes across as quite a strong accusation. First small concern: the wording needs tweaking to avoid implying that Liebeschuetz also mentioned this organization? Secondly though I do not have access to the 2018 article being cited, but when I went searching I find Peter Heather thanking this same European Science Foundation for his own participation, and numerous references to such a friendly connection. So I am wondering if his remark was really as strong as we are reporting it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In his 2018 essay Race, migration and national origins, Heather does write that the European Science Foundation has given a huge amount of support to the Transformation of the Roman World project. Heather was himself at one point part of this project. He writes that this project is suited to the political aims of the European Union. Wolf Liebeschuetz and Bryan Ward-Perkins writes the same thing. Jeanine Rutenburg and Arthur M. Eckstein, in their review of Heather's book, also points out the role of the European Science Foundation in boosting the theories of the Vienna School and the Toronto School. They don't mention Guy Halsall however, but Walter Goffart. Krakkos (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge
Excellent work, feel free to put up your articles here!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romance peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Romance_peoples check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Romance_peoples?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goths
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goths you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

large number of hidden reverts with misleading edsum?
Was it on purpose that you did not mention all the reverts in this edit or by mistake? The reverts being made are all regarding very concrete concerns you've had quite some time to explain on the talk page also. If this was just done by mistake, can I ask you to fix that? If not, then I think the onus is on you to give justifications on the talk page. As pointed out in detail, the versions of these sentences you have reverted to are badly sourced and appear to be a POV fork section which deliberately argues against another better sourced part of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. As you know very well, the article relevant topics ARE being discussed at the article talk page. This message to you personally as an editor, is about your editing approach. Article talk pages are not the right place to point out systematic problems with individual editors, and it is always good to assume good faith as much as possible anyway, and first try to explain concerns to other editors, giving them a chance to explain any misunderstandings etc. Do you think there were any misunderstandings or errors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnic peoples ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Goths check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Goths?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Goths
Hello Krakkos. You and Andrew have both been warned for edit warring at Goths, per the result of the AN3 complaint. The closure says;

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)


 * Krakkos, as I was allowing you to edit at will when you pulled this off (and don't worry, the shameless dishonesty of what you've done will eventually become clear) I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all your edits eventually? To be clear:
 * I can now start making drafts of how the article should look. When the block stops, work starts again, and I will of course take note of the history of how you lie and screw others. Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance. But...
 * The talk page is still no problem and I can keep posting problems and proposals there, in order to keep a clear record of a path for work when the block stops. My concern is not you, but the article, and this block is therefore no real problem to me. You can contribute, but you won't/can't I guess, except in the sense of trying to disrupt and make things less clear, but this will be easy to ignore now, because drafting can happen elsewhere. It looks like Germanic peoples again.
 * Obviously my good faith acceptance of the idea of keeping off the main page now looks very naive. As usual, you do not seem to care a bit how you look to the people you should be trying to work with. Working within WP policies is the opposite of your aim. I predict that is not going to last long now you've taken things to this level.
 * In summary, you seem unable to work honestly and with others, but I would still like that to change. It is surreal sometimes. For a couple of short moments I really hoped/thought you were not going to do a repeat, and you were really going to try to make a real article according to WP policy, where you would actually compromise and work with other editors, and learn from them about how we work. I would still like you to learn how to do that, but it seems that was not possible? Now is the time to decide?
 * My question to you: do you have a non-BS proposal about how to work together now? Please understand I'd be very happy to see any kind of honest proposal from you, but I do have a very sensitive BS detector and really I am calm person but I hate lies and dishonesty. (It is a good combination on Wikipedia.) If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it. Perhaps take some time before answering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, putting all on-going disagreements aside, I do want to apologize for the wording of the above post. Please understand I take full responsibility for it, and there are elements of it which I am quite willing to defend. But I should have written it differently. For the record, I want to pull out the real concerns which the colorful rhetoric distracts from:
 * I believe I have made really big efforts to work with you. I still want to work with you. I think many editors would not have worked as I have with you.
 * You have made it difficult by using the editing leeway I gave you, against me, attacking me personally by misrepresentation.
 * There are many articles where we cross paths, so this could happen again and again now. I believe you are not thinking sensibly about that. I suggest that you please think about it. It is in both our interests to find a way of working.
 * In everything you are posting to me, and about me, the theme I read is that you want to score wins against me by "using the system" rather than talk pages and reasoning. What I want to point out to you is that actually this is working against you, far more than me. Please reflect on that reality.
 * To take an example: criticizes me for not going more quickly to RFCs and the like. Indeed I have tried not to use formal steps like that, but instead to build consensus at local level. It should be more pleasant, and it works better when it is possible. If I do start working more formally, which of course many editors do far more quickly than me, then the end result will be a speeding up of what you are fighting against - by which I mean that our disputes are always about Wikipedia policy and you working against it.
 * In short: just stop trying to work against WP policy, and your editing experience with all other editors will be more pleasant and effective. I hope it turns out better in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Hi, Krakkos. 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 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 if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is because your statement is around 750 words by my count. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service. I'm sorry for this mistake. I've emailed the Arbitration Committee with a request for an extension of the word limit to 750 words. In the meantime i will try to trim my statement down to 500 words again. Krakkos (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have emailed the committee to ask for an extension, you don't need to reduce the size (unless they don't grant you an extension). They will tell you if it needs to be shortened or not. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As you might have noticed i have posted a timeline above in which what i consider the key details of the case are outlined. This will probably make it possible for me to reduce the size of the statement. Is it appropriate that i link to this timeline in the statement? Krakkos (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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 feel that the arbitrators should consider the timeline when deciding whether to accept the case, it should be included in your statement directly. If you are over the maximum length for your statement, you can (as you have done) request an extension. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Krakkos (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Krakkos (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

== Timeline of edit warring, hounding, personal attacks, threats, casting of aspersions and bullying of Krakkos by Andrew Lancaster ==

Below is a timeline of edit warring, hounding, personal attacks, threats, casting of aspersions and bullying of Krakkos by Andrew Lancaster. Evidence related to edit warring and hounding is marked with blue text. Evidence related to personal attacks, threats, casting of aspersions and bullying is marked in red text. Warnings against this behavior is bolded. Krakkos (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 17.01.20 - Fram warns Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos against edit warring at Germanic peoples. (Warning 1)
 * 17.01.20 - An RfC by Krakkos at Germanic peoples receives unanimous support from the community.
 * 20.01.20 - Andrew Lancaster prevents Krakkos from implementing the clear consensus in the RfC, and Dougweller again warns Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster against edit warring at Germanic peoples, threatening them with a block. (Warning 2)
 * 20.01.20 - Dougweller protects Germanic peoples.
 * 10:43, 25.01.20 - Krakkos starts another RfC at Talk:Germanic peoples to discuss the situation.
 * 12:40, 25.01.20 - Andrew Lancaster removes Krakkos' RFC.
 * 10:21, 04.02.20 - The protection at Germanic peoples expires, and Andrew Lancaster completely rewrites the lead.
 * 11:43, 04.02.20 - Rather than reverting, Krakkos criticizes the rewriting of the lead on the talk page, and this change clearly does not appear to be supported by the consensus.
 * 12:39, 04.02.20 until present - Andrew Lancaster proceeds to entirely rewrite the article Germanic peoples.
 * 17:57, 12.12.19 - Krakkos nominates Goths for WP:GA.
 * 21:17, 03.02.20 - Jens Lallensack begins his GA review of Goths, saying that it's "great to see this important article in such a good shape".
 * 21:20, 03.02.20 - A notification of the review is posted at User talk:Krakkos.
 * 14:23, 04.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster complains at Talk:Goths. At this point he had never edited Goths.
 * 09:06, 17.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster rewrites the lead of Goths, and declares his intention to "rebalance" the rest of the article. Notice how he switches "Germanic people" to "Germanic-speaking people", regardless of what is explicitly stated in the used source.
 * 11:13, 21.02.20 - Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories is nominated for deletion, and a notification is left at User talk:Krakkos, because he is the creator of that article.
 * 14:04, 21.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster votes in favor of deleting Romance-speaking countries and territories.
 * 14:10, 21.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster edits and declares his intention to "fix" the article Early Germanic culture, declaring it to be based on "romanticist speculation and fantasy" and declaring it to be a topic which has "been controversial after WW2". This article is also created by Krakkos, and has never been edited by Andrew Lancaster before.
 * 22.02,20-24.02.20 - Krakkos begins improving Goths in accordance with the recommendations of Jens Lallensack.
 * 12:13, 26.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster begins undoing Krakkos' changes at Goths.
 * 18:24, 26.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster accuses Krakkos of being "dishonest".
 * 22:22, 26.02.20 - Krakkos files a complaint against Andrew Lancaster at WP:AN3.
 * 01:32, 27.02.20 - EdJohnston warns Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster against personal attacks and edit warring. (Warning 1) and (Warning 3)
 * 09:39, 27.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster accuses Krakkos of being "shamelessly misleading".
 * 11:14, 27.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster says that Krakkos is "never going to be accepted by this community".
 * 09:10, 28.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster resumes undoing the edits of Krakkos at Goths, removing sources against consensus.
 * 14:10, 28.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster accuses Krakkos of "deliberate distortion", of "ignoring and working against the community", says that he is "nonsensical", "deliberately fraudulent" and a "bully".
 * 14:10, 28.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster says that Krakkos' contributions "will not last (on ANY article)".
 * 15:23, 28.02.20 - EdJohnston warns Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster against edit warring and forbids them from editing Goths without consensus. (Warning 4)
 * 17:44, 28.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster posts a bullying message at the User talk:Krakkos, accusing him of "shameless dishonesty", says that he "lie and screw others", says that Krakkos can't contribute "except in the sense of trying to disrupt", says that he seems "unable to work honestly", that he (Andrew) hates "lies and dishonesty", and threatens him against using "one more lie or twisted reference".
 * 17:44, 28.02.20 - In his bullying message at the talk page of Krakkos, Andrew Lancaster further threatens to "take note of the history" of Krakkos, that he will "call in the community" and be "MUCH harder", which is "going to lead to" Krakkos' "exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all" his edits.
 * 17:52, 28.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster accuses Krakkos of "hypocritical abuse".
 * 02:26, 29.02.20 - EdJohnston makes another warning against Andrew Lancaster for casting blockable aspersions against Krakkos. (Warning 2)
 * 20:18, 29.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster accuses Krakkos of "abuse".
 * 20:35, 29.02.20 - Jens Lallensack criticizes Andrew Lancaster for his personal attacks against Krakkos, and states that he will not participate in such a hostile editing environment. (Warning 3)
 * 21:19, 29.02.20 - Andrew Lancaster doubles down on his personal attacks against Krakkos, and reveals no intention of stopping with it.
 * 21:50, 29.02.20 - Jens Lallensack retires from the Goths article and suggests that Andrew Lancaster reads WP:NPA. (Warning 4)
 * 00:45, 01.03.20 - EdJohnston tells Krakkos that Andrew Lancaster has been casting aspersions against him and suggests that Krakkos contacts other administrators about the case. (Warning 5)
 * 03:41, 01.03.20 - EdJohnston tells Andrew Lancaster that he has committed blockable personal attacks, and instructs him to give Krakkos an apology. (Warning 6)
 * 08:58, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster tells EdJohnston that EdJohnston's warnings will "make Krakkos a worse editor", that Andrew Lancaster in the future will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos", and that "the "win" is not a real win".
 * 09:15, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster makes a non-apology apology at User talk:Krakkos, trivializing his attacks as "colorful rhetoric" which he is "quite willing to defend", concluding that Krakkos should "just stop trying to work against WP policy".
 * 11:10, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster tells EdJohnston that he's only trying to "help Krakkos be a normal editor."
 * 11:49, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster says "Krakkos has a systematic tendency to try to make false claims".
 * 18:03, 01.03.20 - Krakkos files a request for WP:IBAN at Arbitration/Requests/Case in order to make the hounding and personal attacks stop. (Warning 7)
 * 20:34, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster declares that he will "now start tracking" Krakkos.
 * 21:10, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster trivializes his previous attacks on Krakkos as "colorful terminology".
 * 22:32, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster says that Krakkos has "systematic problems".
 * 23:49, 01.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster makes a fictitious "proposal" on behalf of Krakkos at WP:RSN, where he calls Krakkos at "partisan". but is in turn criticized by the community.
 * 09:35, 03.03.20 - Andrew Lancaster says "Krakkos has competence issues".

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

Wikimedia Deletion
Hi, not sure if you are aware, but there is an ongoing deletion discussion of some photos you uploaded to Wikimedia here.

The only valid argument for deletion appears to be that the photographer is unknown. I wonder if you are able to respond to that. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sirfurboy. Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. These reconstructions were made by the renowned Soviet archaeologist Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov in the 1920s and 1930s. These photos appear to have been first published in a book by a relatively unknown Soviet photographer. They have later been reproduced in later works by Gerasimov and in more recent works by Western scholars such as J. P. Mallory. Krakkos (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Do we know the name of the photographer? If we can give the name, then we can oppose the deletion quite easily. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that the name of the photographer was Vladislav Bunakov, but he appears to have been known only in Russia. Krakkos (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert S. Lopez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Robert_S._Lopez check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Robert_S._Lopez?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
thank you for appreciating my edition in Visigothic Kingdom was a pleasure.--REKKWINT (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranic music


A tag has been placed on Category:Iranic music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 13:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goths
The article Goths you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Goths for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Burgundian kings has been nominated for renaming
Category:Burgundian kings, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. A. Thompson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article E. A. Thompson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible Tirgil34 sock (Hunan201p)
Hello Krakkos, I found a possible Tirgril34 sock Hunan201p on the Genghis Khan page and many other related articles which push Tirgil34 like claims. They completely misquoted the Rashid al-din reference and claim that blue eyes and red hair was common in Turkic and Mongolian peoples. This is identical to Tirgil34 l. They also edit many similar topics including Karasuk culture.

Here is the real reference and quote of Rashid al-din:

“It so happened that two months prior to Mögä’s [the son of Kublai’s nurse] birth, Qubilai Qa’an [Kublai Khan] was born, and when Genghis Khan’s gaze fell upon him he said, “Our [Chinggis Khan’s] sons are all of a ruddy complexion, but this boy [Kublai] is swarthy, just like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqaghtani Beki [Kublai’s mother] to give him to a good nurse to be brought up by.”” -Rashid al-Din/Thackston translation, 415.

“It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan’s eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared.”” -Rashid al-Din/Boyle translation, 241.

Here the link to the reference:https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245

Ruddy skin means reddish skin not hair. And nowhere are blue eyes mentioned. Can you please correct this misinterpretation and take care of the suspected sock? Thank you.38.121.43.37 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. A. Thompson
The article E. A. Thompson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:E. A. Thompson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Huns ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Huns check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Huns?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Haplogroup R
 * Saka ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Saka check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Saka?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Haplogroup R

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wusun
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wusun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wusun
The article Wusun you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wusun for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested
"The Scythians were the first steppe nomads to be described in classical literature (Herodotus, IV, 1–83; Strabo, XI, 2, 1; XI, 6, 2; XI, 8, 2; Ptolemy, VI, 13–15). Later classicizing Greek authors therefore frequently applied the name Scythians to later nomadic groups who had no relation whatever to the original Scythians. These included the Huns (Priscus, fr. 5 Blockley; Theophanes, am 5942), the Goths and Ostrogoths (Priscus, fr. 28 Blockley; Procopius, Gothic, VIII, 5, 5–6; Strategicon, 53–4; Theophanes, am 5870), the Türks (Menander Protector, fr. 10, 3 and 19, 1 Blockley; Strategicon, 116–18; Theophylact Simocatta, I, 8; IV, 10; V, 10; VII, 7), the Avars (Menander Protector, fr. 15, 1–3 Blockley; Strategicon, 116–18; Theophylact Simocatta, VII, 8), the Khazars (Theophanes, am 6224), and unnamed or generic steppe nomads (Cosmas Indicopleustes, 74, 120–1; John Malalas, XVI, 16; XVIII, 26; Strategicon, 24, 52–3, 61, 65, 68)." -- Dickens, Mark. (2018). "Scythians". The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. pp. 1346-1347

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for providing this quotation. Ancient terminology and modern terminology can indeed be quite different. Misguided attempts to combine these frequently leads to problems. This applies to Scythians and many other topics. Krakkos (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. I believe this quotation will be useful in future "showdowns", if you get what I mean. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your remark on Goths
You made some remarks directed more at me personally than at anything to do with editing the article Goths. I don't want to take them too seriously, but I don't want to leave them unanswered.
 * This is not the first time on this article that you've said there are problems on Germanic peoples, but I have asked you on previous occasions to post useful explanations of such remarks in an appropriate place (that article talk page, or mine for example), and you never do. Other editors all seem happy with the progress on that article.
 * As per WP:NPA there are no personal attacks in my post which you replied to. I just described what happened. Your own many dramatically-worded appeals in various forums all over WP that "something must be done" to stop me editing on Goths, lamenting that you had previously failed to stop me on Germanic peoples, are all in agreement with my description.
 * During those efforts, I did get criticized/warned by for forgetting to use more acceptable words like "misrepresentation" when describing your actions and strategies, but you should stop being so proud of that. It was not an achievement for either of us, just like getting your editing limited on this article, was not an achievement. I do not think anyone has argued against me that you did no misrepresenting in order to try to stop me editing? I still say you did.
 * More important is the future. I don't so much care about that past Krakkos. If you can please avoid misrepresentations, I hope we can try to help each other make better articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Krakkos, and welcome to Women in Red. With your wide experience of biography, history and archaeology, I'm sure you'll be able to make excellent contributions to our project. Our various redlists may help you to select historians and archaeologists deserving attention. Although you are obviously well aware of many of the points it covers, you may find it helpful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll try to help as best as i can. Krakkos (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion and IP-hopping by LTA case
See this. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for notifying me. This is indeed him. Krakkos (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And another one. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More. Seems he has stopped using accounts and now uses IP-hopping. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems like he was editing with some accounts through those IPs as well. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at User_talk:Berean_Hunter. What do you think about that user? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that Hunan101p was found to technically unrelated to Tirgil34, and certain behavioral differences between them, i doubt that they are the same person. Tirgil34 is actively working to recruit meatpuppets, both through Wikipedia and other websites. Tirgil34 is particularly frustrated over information connecting Turkic peoples to East Asia, and information about Western Steppe Herders. He has tried numerous times to recruit meatpuppets to remove such information. In addition to the edits you have already provided, Tirgil34 and Hunan101p have been making near-identical edits at Göktürks. Huna101p has also nominated for deletion several files used at Western Steppe Herders.. Given the evidence, i think meatpuppetry between Tirgil34 and Hunan101p quite probable. Krakkos (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you notify Berean Hunter about it? If you review Hunan101p's edits, you will find more similarities. See what he added to Red hair, that "As recently as the 20th century..." part. Or these Tirgil34-ish stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen his stuff on fandom.com? You better add it to his LTA page. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me about this site. I'll update the LTA when i have time to do so. Krakkos (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And more accounts on that racialist forum: Have you noticed a racialist and pro-pseudo-science like him have started using those words against WP and its editors? He called you racialist in his wiki and that edit by his IP. I think you should mention his new behavior/tactics on the LTA page. That exposed troll is desperate as hell. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. He's been making similar attacks on his Youtube account. Tirgil34 is indeed a sad case. I'll update the LTA when i have time. Krakkos (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And that new account on Talk:Tajiks? More like Tirgil34 or User:WorldCreaterFighter? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could be either of them, but i think the account is more similar Tirgil34 than WorldCreaterFighter. Krakkos (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tirgil34 SPI case is still open and the case would become confusing/complicated if we add another account to it. Because it's all about Hunan201p's behavior & edits. Being pro-Mongol or pro-East Asian matches with WorldCreaterFighter's history. But could comments on a talk page be considered as evidence without editing the article namespace? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as i know, talk page comments can be used as evidence. Krakkos (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Too soon to report him? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I won't object to the filing of a report. Krakkos (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then would you please do it? You're very familiar with both sockmasters and their edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to look more into it if i am to file a report. Krakkos (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Krakkos! I have stumbled across this discussion because you have done a couple of reverts of edits in Armenian-related pages made by the blocked sock-IP. That's fine, because the original edits were terribly POV and based on misrepresentation of the sources, but in one page (Proto-Armenian), and I already have vetted the text (btw unaware that the text originates from a blocked IP, because of the rather wild back-and-forth edits in the page) and made the necessary fixes. I'll see what can be done with the information about the reception of Graeco-Armenian based on a correct reading of the sources (admittedly mostly high-quality sources).

But that's not why I'm here. I find your discussion with very interesting, since I have become quite familiar with the LTA of WorldCreaterFighter because of the path of chaos/disruption which this sockmaster had left in pages about Asian language families. Socks regularly pop up in pages on my watchlist, and I handle them per SPI or emails to Berean Hunter. Don't know much about Tirgil34, though. Strangely enough, in German WP they're treated as a single sockmaster.

My 2 cents about the editors your taking about here: –Austronesier (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The novice in Talk:Tajiks does not look like WorldCreaterFighter. WCF usually straight jumps into editing main space, with some stock sources up their sleeve, which they usually partially or totally misread (always wonder if this is malicious POV or a CIR-problem, most likely both), whereas the novice in Talk:Tajiks starts with a forum-like discussion. WCF only begins to discuss when put into a corner, and quickly goes nuts (cf. e.g. this freak show: User talk:Gyatso1).
 * Hunan201p is an absolutely weird case. They have approached me once about my opinion whether a certain editor might be a sock of WCF. Hunan201p sees WCF-socks everywhere, and one of the worst thing they did was to initiate a merge of the SPIs of DerekHistorian and WCF. A trademark of Hunan201p are deletions of material which they base on WP:MEDRS. My gut feeling is that these deletions are done very selectively to eliminate data against their POV, but leaving similar material untouched that supports their POV. Maybe that might help to find a Tirgil34 fingerprint here, too.
 * Finally, not fully related to this: what is your opinion about User:DerekHistorian? I'm still not convinced that this is a sock of WCF; maybe a trolling team-partner, based on the sick discussion in User talk:Gyatso1.
 * Thanks for paying attention to these issues. If i removed quality information from Proto-Armenian language and related articles, please do reinsert it. I agree that the Talk:Tajiks novice is more similar to Tirgil34 than WCF. This kind of talk page trolling is quite characteristic of Tirgil34. I filed most of the early sockpuppet investigations on WCF, but have not been much involved with that case in recent years. Sometimes i have doubts about whether all of the socks recently blocked as being WCF really belong to the "original" WCF. Hunan201p has been found to be unrelated to Tirgil34, and their behavior is somewhat different. However, i consider it quite likely that Hunan201p has been meatsocking on behalf of Tirgil34. I don't know much about DerekHistorian. His editing history, largely centered around race and sexuality in East Asia, are however quite remeniscent of the early editing of WCF in my opinion. Krakkos (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion about these cases. I hope more users and admins take these LTA cases seriously. Each one of those users/teams do have their own agenda/quest but Team Tirgil34 (AKA everything was/is Turkic) is a serious threat because it's a revisionist, political and nationalistic project. It's a war against WP and academic works. It's noticeable in their stuff (both WP and outside of WP). Another point is while those accounts may be unrelated to each other, but sometimes they share similar interests (mini quests); e.g. take a look a very Tirgil34-ish edits by WCF's sockpuppet User:AsadalEditor on Indo-European migrations, Proto-Indo-European homeland, Anatolian hypothesis, Indo-Iranians, Proto-Indo-Iranian language, Andronovo culture, Indo-Aryan migration, and others. The misrepresentation of sources, falsification, and denying steppe origin of IEs is very very similar to Team Tirgil34. Or this Hunan201p's rant matches with Tirgil34's rants against WP (calling WP Eurocentric). --Wario-Man (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PicturesOfTheWorld has now been confirmed as a Tirgil34 sock. PicturesOfTheWorld was a sleeper account reactivated after more than three years of hibernation. Interestingly, it was reactivated in order to support nominations by Hunan201p on Commons. Krakkos (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a "pan-Southist Meatpuppetry-Triangle" is? Tirgil34 claims that you're a ringleader in a great "pan-Southist" conspiracy on Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The same reason he calls us pan-Indo-Europeanist, pan-Iranist, Eurocentrist, and etc. According to him; Turkic ethnic groups are northern and Indo-Europeans (especially Indo-Iranians) are southern. If you take a look at his activity on other websites, you will see why he uses such terms; e.g. the so-called northern European-like Turkic peoples brought Avestan and Sanskrit to southern lands (AKA everything was/is Turkic in Eurasia). As I said before, he's the revival and modern version of Sun Language Theory. Have you noticed he supports multiple simultaneous homeland/Urheimat for Turkic peoples? From Europe to Near East to Central Asia to XYZ. You better notify some admins about his agenda/quest because he has declared a war on WP. Since he's already exposed, he tries to convince other people doing his stuff on WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos, Check out this IP, especially this summary. Citing WP:SCIRS and especially the outlandish mention of WP:MEDRS in anthropological pages is a trademark of Hunan201p, right? –Austronesier (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's him. The edit summaries and the pattern of removal match with Hunan201p. Report him for block evasion. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. And here's another, different duck. To early to tell for sure, but RK Turkestan + Austric is a rather odd mix for a newbie. –Austronesier (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Krakkos (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very telling how the persona Hunan201p feigns to fight against "racialist" terms like "Mongoloid", carefully putting them into quotation marks, but now as IP writes edsums like "There is no evidence that Turkic people were Mongoloid", when not having to wear the mask of poor electrocuted "Michael"... –Austronesier (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fake identities assumed by sockpuppeteers can get quite amusing. Tirgil34 has invariably proclaimed himself to be Ossetian, German, or Hungarian, and also edited as a female, a transexual LGBT activist, and as German male with the fictitious name "Jörg Lerens". Cloaking POV-pushing behind a veil of anti-racism is also a typical hallmark. For example, Tirgil34 accuses you, Wario-Man, me and others of belonging to a "Eurocentrist-pan-Indo-Iranist Meatpuppetry-Triangle", and seeks to discredit the Kurgan hypothesis by accusing Marija Gimbutas of being a "a ghostwriter of Adolf Hitler", while he at other websites has been promoting Nazism and Holocaust denial. Krakkos (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we report Hunan201p's block evasion and violations to WP:ANI or we better wait for SPI results? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Turkipedia stuff is freaking sick LOL. It looks more like a self-parody making likewise fun of us and of Tirgil34—or that weirdo is just really that meshuggah. The four-angled triagle! Btw, the "Jörg Lerens" persona looks very much like the "WCF"-socks "AsadalEditor" etc. (many of which were recently smoked out in Commons). –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The SPI hasn't affected the block of Hunan201p, although the recent violation should be enough for extending the block, or to change it to indeff—IMVH non-admin O. –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Take a look at Special:Contributions/Nanuh2020 and Special:Contributions/Rsk6400 (edit summaries and comments). It's odd how all of these accounts have become very active since the day Hunan201p got blocked, and all of them are interested in physical anthropology, genetics, skin and hair color. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Submitted a new Sockpuppet investigations/Hunan201p. In my opinion, Rsk6400 is suspicious too. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: the first looks like a troll pretending to be duck, the second is an editor with strong authentic anti-BS, anti-racialist convictions (cf. Hamites, maybe with a certain tendency to pour out the baby with the bathwater). Hunap201p feigns anti-racialism to fish for sympathies, but is in-and-out racialist to the bone (like Tirgil34, WCF and DerekHistorian and all that swamp). –Austronesier (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"A genetic study"
For example "Malmström et al (2015)," c.q. would be clearer, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I've implemented your suggestions at Early European Farmers. Will implement similar changes at related articles in the near future. Krakkos (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hunan101p?
I assume in this edit, "Hunan101p" is just a typo, and you meant 201? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, i meant 201. Thanks for notifying me. Krakkos (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Early European Farmers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guanche ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Early_European_Farmers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Early_European_Farmers?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

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

Árpád dynasty
Just a reminder that your two edits at the article were reverted because the genetic study was already cited.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Italic fairy tales


A tag has been placed on Category:Italic fairy tales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Italic legendary creatures
The Category:Italic legendary creatures which you have created was recently redirected by User:Mclay1. You might need to take a look at their edits. Dimadick (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me aware of these changes. I'll take a further look at them when i have time. Krakkos (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome..

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Birger Nerman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baltic and Seeburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Replaceable fair use File:Deiter Geuenich.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Deiter Geuenich.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dieter Timpe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dieter Timpe.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Claude Lecouteux.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Claude Lecouteux.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:David W. Anthony.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:David W. Anthony.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:J. P. Mallory.png
Thanks for uploading File:J. P. Mallory.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Leonard Neidorf.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Leonard Neidorf.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Robert D. Fulk.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Robert D. Fulk.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Wolf Liebeschuetz.png
Thanks for uploading File:Wolf Liebeschuetz.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Elizabeth Ashman Rowe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth Ashman Rowe.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coinage and Agrarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Italic diaspora


A tag has been placed on Category:Italic diaspora requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 14:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ref = harv
When you add citations to files, where are you sourcing those citations from? harv is no longer necessary, so I'm wondering if you are adding those or if they are autofilled by something. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who has been adding harv to the citations. I wasn't aware that this was no longer necessary. Thanks for informing me about that. Krakkos (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter Goffart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anti-German and Disciple.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Missing cite in Georges Dumézil
The article cites "Dumézil 1999" and "Littleton 2003" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? 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) 00:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I have now fixed these issues. I'll try to prevent this from happening in the future. Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas Allen (anthropologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian mythology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Malcolm Todd.png
Thanks for uploading File:Malcolm Todd.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind suggestion. At this point in time, the GA team are having a month long drive to clear the backup of good article nominations. So you could be visited by other GA reviewers. Yapperbot has left many reviews on my talk page; some of them will get done by others, so I have not idea what will come or go or get completed as a review in this month of October. I shall keep your list, and we shall wait and see what happens during the month. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. Thank you for your outstanding work. Krakkos (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lee M. Hollander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Picture of Sir Allen Mawer.png
Thanks for uploading File:Picture of Sir Allen Mawer.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winfred P. Lehmann
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winfred P. Lehmann you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jaan Puhvel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jaan Puhvel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malcolm Todd
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Malcolm Todd you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edgar C. Polomé
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edgar C. Polomé you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ffranc -- Ffranc (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georges Dumézil
The article Georges Dumézil you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Georges Dumézil for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georges Dumézil
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Georges Dumézil you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your attention to the GA Review, kindly. -- Whiteguru (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, . I have now made an attempt ad modifying the article in accordance with your recommendations. Krakkos (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edgar C. Polomé
The article Edgar C. Polomé you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edgar C. Polomé for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ffranc -- Ffranc (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winfred P. Lehmann
The article Winfred P. Lehmann you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Winfred P. Lehmann for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Georges Dumézil
The article Georges Dumézil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Georges Dumézil for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winfred P. Lehmann
The article Winfred P. Lehmann you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Winfred P. Lehmann for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jaan Puhvel
The article Jaan Puhvel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jaan Puhvel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jaan Puhvel
The article Jaan Puhvel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jaan Puhvel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birger Nerman
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Birger Nerman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joe Roe -- Joe Roe (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birger Nerman
The article Birger Nerman you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Birger Nerman for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joe Roe -- Joe Roe (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birger Nerman
The article Birger Nerman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Birger Nerman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joe Roe -- Joe Roe (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jan de Vries (philologist)
Hello, and thank you for nominating Jan de Vries (philologist) for DYK. Unfortunately, as the article was nominated beyond DYK's seven day requirement for new or newly-expanded content, the nomination has been rejected. In the future, when nominating an article for DYK, make sure that the article is nominated within seven days of the article's creation, 5x expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malcolm Todd
The article Malcolm Todd you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Malcolm Todd for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Malcolm Todd
The article Malcolm Todd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Malcolm Todd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jaan Puhvel
Hello! Your submission of Jaan Puhvel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Georges Dumézil
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2467 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Krakkos (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Birger Nerman
Hello! Your submission of Birger Nerman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have responded at Template:Did you know nominations/Birger Nerman. Krakkos (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jaan Puhvel
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Malcolm Todd
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Edgar C. Polomé
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Winfred P. Lehmann
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Problematic change?
Hi Krakkos, hope all is well. IMO, this recent change is going to create problems for entities such as Alania, Kingdom of Khotan, etc. Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank for the heads up, . I agree that this is a problematic change. The apparent failure of certain editors to distinguish between Iran and Iranian peoples is quite surprising. I have transferred Alania, Kingdom of Khotan and similar articles to the category Iranian countries and territories. Krakkos (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it still appears to be pretty difficult, even in 2020. Thank you for your help. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Birger Nerman
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Map
Hi there. From which map did you extract this map? I's like to use the basis for another map. regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, . The basis of the map is extracted from Blank Physical Map of Europe by Mapswire. The Mapswire maps are freely licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Krakkos (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice work! Krakkos (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hector Munro Chadwick
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hector Munro Chadwick you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a human here ... I've reviewed the article, which I enjoyed. It's almost ready but the comments on the GA1 page need your attention for it to pass. Happy New Year! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a great review. I have now updated the article in accordance with your recommendations. Happy New Year to you too! Krakkos (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Hector Munro Chadwick
The article Hector Munro Chadwick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hector Munro Chadwick for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresenting source and harassment of user
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RfCs on ethnicity and nationality
Why have you created lots of RfCs (I count 21 in all), all on seperate pages, for what appears to be the same issue? They all seem to follow on from Talk:Germans, and this itself seems to be follow-on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Having all of these discussions simultaneously is very much against WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about these guidelines. I don't have much experience with RfC's. The created RfCs are obviously related, but i still think there essential differences between them. The ethnicity and nationality issue is one that affects a large number of articles, and i figured that making several RfC's would be a good way to get a broad and diverse input on the issue.  Krakkos (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Each of these RfCs are identically worded, but all cases are inherently different from another, and thus will elicit differentiated answers from very diverse angles; none of them will be citeable as precedent for another. So I don't think this is a typical case of WP:FORUMSHOP. The only problem is that by nature of the pages concerned, quite a number of editors will be interested in participating in more than one discussion; this will certainly be tiring, and also create a lot of cross-referencing between discussions by editors who believe that all RfCs are about the same thing. Ideally, they should be done one after another, and also—more importantly—only if the matter currently has been subject of debate on the respective talk page before (per WP:RFCBEFORE). I can't see this e.g. for Thai people, Somalis. @Krakkos: I'd suggest you retract the RfCs from those talk pages where currently there is no visible dispute. –Austronesier (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Krakkos, I share the view that you have opened too many parallel RfCs. If you cut back just to the German one, you would be able to use any lessons learned there to decide how to proceed on the other articles. Your action doesn't break any policy, it just risks frustrating people or reducing the attention you will get to the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I have ended all of these RfCs. Those that hadn't been replied to have been removed entirely, while those that have already received replies had their RfC tag removed. In retrospect it would have been better to add a notification at these talk pages rather than an RfC, and perhaps start a broad RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Krakkos (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hans Heinrich Schaeder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hector Munro Chadwick
Hello! Your submission of Hector Munro Chadwick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hector Munro Chadwick
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Carl Richard Unger
 * added a link pointing to Christiania
 * Richard Heinzel
 * added a link pointing to Capodistria

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
Blimey! I have a Wikipedia entry! I am hard put to express how chuffed I am to be represented in this way in my favourite corner of the Internet. Thanks, Krakkos! Alarichall (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Alarichall. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your specialist knowledge! Krakkos (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP needs editors like the two of you.--Berig (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And you too, Berig! I'm very happy to see that you have returned to more active editing. Krakkos (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work all round. Now we'd better add some more reliable secondary sources ... maybe reviews ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very true, Chiswick Chap. Hall's Elves in Anglo-Saxon England (2007) has been the subject of plenty of reviews. I'll see what i can do. Krakkos (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Competence required
Dear Krakkos, I know your skills in finding sources. We are having a discussion with an insistent editor about WP:NAME on the talkpage of Magnus the Strong. Your competence would be of great help.--Berig (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear . Sorry for the late reply. It nevertheless appears like the issue has been settled. I have expressed my thoughts at the talk page. Krakkos (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! It is always valuable :-)--Berig (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hilda Ellis Davidson
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hilda Ellis Davidson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hilda Ellis Davidson
The article Hilda Ellis Davidson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hilda Ellis Davidson for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Allen Mawer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Allen Mawer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Two matters to sort for a pass. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Allen Mawer
The article Allen Mawer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Allen Mawer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lee M. Hollander
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lee M. Hollander you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lee M. Hollander
The article Lee M. Hollander you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lee M. Hollander for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Magnus Olsen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Magnus Olsen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hilda Ellis Davidson
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Magnus Olsen
The article Magnus Olsen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magnus Olsen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WSH
Hi, would you kindly take a look at this? That unexplained edit might no be right (WP:OR perhaps). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Allentoft et al. (2015) Haak et al. (2015) specifically shows high levels of WSH ancestry in Norway, Estonia and Lithuania. As far as i understand it, levels of WSH ancestry are equally high in other Northern European countries, such as Latvia, Finland and Sweden. It seems to me that the above changes are factually correct, but they are not entirely supported by what is stated in Allentoft et al. (2015) Haak et al. (2015). Krakkos (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. A case of OR right? Perhaps it needs to be reworded then. When we are talking about northern in a northern vs southern Europe scenario, it is possibly not the same as Northern Europe, perhaps regions of Western, Central And Eastern Europe are also included. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That northern Europeans have about 50% WSH ancestry is stated by Lazaridis et al. (2016), who in turn cites Haak et al. (2015). I have added a citation to Lazaridis et al. (2016) to the article. Krakkos (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that, thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hans Kuhn (philologist).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hans Kuhn (philologist).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francis Owen (philologist)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Francis Owen (philologist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francis Owen (philologist)
The article Francis Owen (philologist) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Francis Owen (philologist) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Scholars articles
Hi Krakkos, are you still doing articles on scholars of Germanic studies? I have a few to propose for you, they have German articles already, namely de:Jan-Dirk Müller and de:Walter Haug. I'm in the midst of preparing an article on Germanic heroic legend (currently redirect) at my sandbox in case you'd be interested in adding anything, by the way, User:Ermenrich/sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recommendations, Ermenrich. The draft for Germanic heroic legend looks very promising. Great work! User:Pfold would make an excellent contributor to this article. Hector Munro Chadwick wrote several works on the subject. However, some of his conclusions may be dated. Early Germanic Literature and Culture and Language and history in the early Germanic world may also be useful sources. The Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde has many quality articles on the subject too. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind recommendation, Krakkos, but I've left the work on Germanic heroic legend to Ermenrich since that's an area where he has much greater expertise (and breadth of reading) than I do. Besides, I have enough to do on Middle High German literature and German courtly romance!--Pfold (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fully understandable! Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions! I'm getting my hands on the second volume - I didn't see anything in Green, but I'll have another look.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone else to consider, an American this time, but only a German article: de:Theodore M. Andersson.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, Ermenrich. I recently made an article for Andersson's mentor Konstantin Reichardt. For additional sources on Germanic heroic legend, i would recommend checking out this list prepared at the University of Cologne. Krakkos (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lee M. Hollander
M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dennis Howard Green
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dennis Howard Green you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dennis Howard Green
The article Dennis Howard Green you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dennis Howard Green for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Magnus Olsen
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of figures in German legend
Hi Krakkos, I know you like people-etymologies. Maybe you'd have something to add to that section of the forthcoming "List of figures, peoples, and objects in Germanic heroic poetry" at User:Ermenrich/sandbox now that Germanic heroic legend has been moved to mainspace.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, Ermenrich. It's wonderful to see professionals such as yourself contribute to Wikipedia in their field of expertise. The following sources may be useful for the development of the forthcoming article:
 * Dictionary of Northern Mythology by Rudolf Simek
 * Encyclopedia of Norse and Germanic Folklore, Mythology, and Magic by Claude Lecouteux
 * Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie und Heldensage by Arnulf Krause
 * I'm also certain that almost every subject suitable for inclusion in the forthcoming article has an entry in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Krakkos (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Allen Mawer
Hello! Your submission of Allen Mawer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, it's been two weeks since this notification was posted. Please respond to this DYK nominations soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the reminder. I have responded at the review page. Krakkos (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Allen Mawer
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabriel Turville-Petre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gabriel Turville-Petre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabriel Turville-Petre
The article Gabriel Turville-Petre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gabriel Turville-Petre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Dennis Howard Green
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Zakiev
I'm not gonna feed this. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I agree, there's no reason to feed this. Krakkos (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

 * Thank you for the recommendation and your fine work. I have now joined the project. Krakkos (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC
Dear, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths.--Berig (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, Berig. I have contributed by comments at the RFC. Krakkos (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gabriel Turville-Petre
Hello! Your submission of Gabriel Turville-Petre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Gabriel Turville-Petre
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank You
Your nominee for EotW has been awarded. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, and ! I didn't know I had been nominated so this was a very nice surprise!--Berig (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on a well deserved award, Berig! Krakkos (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of Agilulf (Suebi)


The article Agilulf (Suebi) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Very short article, unsourced, notability unclear, equivalent articles on other Wikipedias do not look much better."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Pavia (476)
I think the title should be changed to Battle of Piacenza becuase Orestes was killed near of Piacenza not Pavia. Greets Kardam (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your intelligent explanation and suggestion. While I've been kicking around WP for several years, this whole topic is rather new for me. This seems another case of entrenched ideology. I do, however, need to spend some time reading up on the subject so will follow up on the links you provided. Dynasteria (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The subject is indeed heavily afflicted with ideology. The involvement of common-sense experienced Wikipedians such as yourself are crucial in such situations. From my own experience, looking into this whole controversy has been a source of insight into the state of moder academia and many other interesting things. I hope you enjoy reading up on the topic. Feel fee to notify me if you want to know more or have any questions. Krakkos (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi. Would you please take a look at Iranian_peoples? There are some citations (DNA and genetic stuff) which may be misrepresented or falsified. Cheers!  Wario-Man  talk 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Large parts of this section seems to be based on original research and questionable sources. I think a cleanup is warranted. Krakkos (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please do it. Seems Iranian_peoples suffers from the very same issues. Some old leftovers and they could be outdated too.  Wario-Man  talk 16:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will check it when i have time. The article certainly has much room for improvement. Krakkos (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Tirgil
Hi Krakkos, could you have a look at this IP ? Doesn't that sock master also geolocate to Germany? Any other similarities? They've restored content that was originally added by Tirgil presumably (and mentioned me by name, oddly, although I can't recall ever encountering them before).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Ermenrich. This IP is from the same service provider as those of Tirgil34. It certainly could be him. The IP restores information added by Crovata, another sockmaster whose interests overlap with Tirgil34. The IP is certainly a sock of someone, but it's difficult to say whose. Krakkos (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Odd stuff
Hi. Take a look at this.  Wario-Man  talk 04:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff, Wario-Man. The content added by this user appears to to be copy pasted from the Turkish WP. It doesn't seem like an improvement to me. Krakkos (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He/She could be related to these IP users and this blocked user. Looking at his/her others edits, I expect encountering more similar issues in the future. Since you're an experienced editor in Scythian topics, I think you better review the content and make necessary changes/removals. Cheers!  Wario-Man  talk 10:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing this evidence, Wario-Man. It seems likely that there is sockpuppetry going on here. I have initiated an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/HistoriaTurce. Krakkos (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome back!
Just wanted to say it's nice to have you back!--Ermenrich (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ermenrich! There's been a lot of progress at certain articles during my absence. Hopefully that progress will continue also after my return :) Krakkos (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, I'm on the verge of taking a Wikibreak myself out of frustration with certain articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. However, your improvements are of high quality and seem to be greatly appreciated by most of the community. I don't think efforts to revert certain articles back to their prior state will be successful. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of LTA User:Tirgil34? Or a meat puppet?
There's this User:Della5tttt (contribs) put this unsourced not-so-veiled Pan-Turkic edit " and historians believe that his breed was Akhal Teke, still in existence today." into the article Bucephalus. Clearly WP:FRINGE. Whenever convenient can you & other editors kindly investigate this?

Also, recently there have been one (or more?) quite likely Pan-Turkic nationalist(s?) pushing extraordinary claims about the Akhal-Teke horsebreed. This poorly sourced, is just a reuploaded version of , already successfully deleted after being for deletion by Kanguole; however, it has been used in these articles History of Turkmenistan, Turkmen tribes, Teke (Turkmen tribe), Animal worship and Portal:Turkmenistan. I once removed the image, it was restored, removed again by the bot CommonsDelinker & then re-added (see the Turkmen tribes's edit history). Knowing that my further attempts to remove it will be futile & can get me banned for participating in an edit war, I just annotated the image to indicate that it was merely claimed, NOT confirmed beyond reasonable doubt to represent a Dayuan/Heavenly/Ferghana horse (whose realistic depictions by Chinese look very differently from the horse in the image).

And, finally, there's this laughably absurd Pan-Turkic claim in the Âu Lạc's talkpage: "Tay Au /tày are not ethnic Kinh (Vietnamese): Tay Au were nomadic Tai/Krai and Turkic combined. They are not ethnic Lạc Việt." Good thing it did not make it into the main article. PanTurks' M.O.: Everything and everyone is Turkic. /s Erminwin (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell. You could file a new SPI report at Sockpuppet investigations to investigate further. Krakkos (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

What is the source of the map you used for the Corded Ware and other IE culture maps in Wikimedia Commons?
It doesn't say where the map base image itself was sourced, so I'm thinking it's somewhere here on wikicommons but I haven't been able to locate it yet. Example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Corded_Ware_culture.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.187.118 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources are mentioned here. Sources will be found for other IE culture maps on their equivalent pages at Commons. Krakkos (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Suggestionfor scholar biography
Hi Krakkos! I know you've been less active lately, but a scholarly who could definitely use an English-language page on Wikipedia is the legal historian Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ermenrich! Thanks for the suggestion. Schmidt-Wiegand is certainly a scholar worthy of an English-language Wikipedia article. Krakkos (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

More Pan-Turkist propaganda
Whenever you will be available, please have a look at the Turkic History (with capitalized H-) article & figure out what to do with it. Erminwin (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have added my thoughts at Talk:Turkic History. Krakkos (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Exposing Hunan201p as LTA Tirgil34 (or a gang member of his racialist Pan-Turkist grouping)
Hello, , , ,. I have now strong and specific evidence that Hunan201p is lying about his real identity and probably related to the LTA user Tirgil34, who is well known for pushing these strange racialist arguments about early Turks being blonde, blue eyed, and with "Caucasian" features. You can see a summary about Tirgil34 here: Next to Wikipedia, he is also active on YouTube and Quora. He probably has many followers, associated with Pan-Turkist agendas.

Next to Hunan201p's many similar edits on pages such claiming Ghenghis Khan was blonde/red haired and blue eyed, or other edits on blonde hair, various Eurasian Steppe peoples, tribes and cultures, he made a serve hasty mistake!

Look at this edit, especially the last paragraph:. How many American people (English speakers) do you know who use the letter "ü"? English keyboards do not even have the letter ü! It is very suspicious that he suddenly speaks about "Türkic people" and "Türks". But we all know who is doing that. Tirgil34 and his Pan-Turkist gang. This is no coincidence! Even his edits were massively misleading, removing several citations and implementing that early Turks were largely West-Eurasian. Than calling it "mistakenly deleted, after another user mentioned his deletion on the talk page. Tirgil34 and his socks frequently used the terms "Türkic" instead of the correct English Turkic. Such a serious mistake, especially a user who claims to be American, does not happen accidently. English does not have a letter ü. Turkish or German have it as example.

Here is what Hunan201p claimed, including his serve mistake using the letter ü, exposing him once and for all:
 * Thus, West Eurasian physical features like blue eyes or "Caucasoid" facial features were already present in the earliest period of the medieval age. Many authors, including Wang, believe that many of the Old Türks were originally of a West Eurasian appearance, and became more East Asian looking during the medieval period, due to admixture with East Asians. Hence the oversimplification that Türkic speakers became West Eurasian in medieval times is an evisceration of what the sources actually say. It's much more complex than that.

I suspect there are more Tirgil34 gang members here, as example for other suspicious accounts see: and Not sure if one person, probably not, as Tirgil34 is actively recruiting them on YouTube, Quora and other forums, even creating his own page, which is all mentioned at the LTA page. Recently I reported a suspicious user on Quora to the moderation team and informed them about the Tirgil34 case in Wikipedia. They checked and shortly after banned the account. . Here one of his propaganda artworks and webpages he is promoting there: So I am not thinking we should be passive in this case!

You may search some more evidence and check out the LTA page and make some comparisons. Cheers! - 2001:4BC9:920:23F2:1507:7018:6FAD:FDCD (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for an SPI investigation, really, but I do wish to add that there is nothing in the technical data that I looked at that suggests that Hunan is connected to Tutsens Woman, or that either of them are socking. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:21st-century Germanic people has been nominated for renaming
Category:21st-century Germanic people has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People from Old Saxony


A tag has been placed on Category:People from Old Saxony indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Some articles need to be reviewed
Hi. How are you? Your thoughts on Cadiseni, Maskut, and White Huns? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And this. Does not look neutral to me; e.g. . --Mann Mann (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:13th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:13th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:14th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:14th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:15th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:16th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:16th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:17th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:17th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century Germanic people


A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century Germanic people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Map request
Hi! Can I be cheeky and request that you create one of your very fine maps to add to the new Repin culture article? The article currently has no images at all ☹️  Tewdar   18:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2019
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Recognition
As a reminder that scholars across the project have noticed and appreciate the tireless work you do, I hereby present the following:
 * Thanks you so much for the recognition, Obenritter! Other responsibilities have lately prevented me from contributing much to Wikipedia, but everything is well. It has been a true delight to to notice the great contribution you and the rest of the guys have made at Germanic paganism and other articles. Wishing you a very Happy Holiday season and warm wishes for the New Year. Krakkos (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gleichfalls....einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr! Obenritter (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year, Krakkos!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Krakkos, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Mann Mann (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Happy New Year to you as well, Mann Mann, my dear old friend! Krakkos (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Best wishes --Mann Mann (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Emailing
Hello. Could I email you regarding a sensitive issue that I think would be best discussed on a non-public platform first? Antiquistik (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of Atsuhiko Yoshida


The article Atsuhiko Yoshida has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atsuhiko Yoshida


The article Atsuhiko Yoshida has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 20:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Alemannic rulers has been nominated for renaming
Category:Alemannic rulers has been nominated for renaming. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Germanic-speaking world for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Germanic-speaking world, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Germanic-speaking world until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Germanic women has been nominated for merging
Category:Germanic women 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Germanic folklore has been nominated for merging
Category:Germanic folklore 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Celtic culture by country has been nominated for deletion
Category:Celtic culture by country has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Indo-European folklore has been nominated for splitting
Category:Indo-European folklore has been nominated for splitting. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Iranic folklore has been nominated for deletion
Category:Iranic folklore has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Celtic warfare has been nominated for renaming
Category:Celtic warfare has been nominated for renaming. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Germanic people has been nominated for renaming
Category:Germanic people has been nominated for renaming. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Celtic clans has been nominated for deletion
Category:Celtic clans has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European law has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European law 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European warfare has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European warfare 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European archaeological artifacts has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European archaeological artifacts 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European archaeological sites has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European archaeological sites 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European legendary creatures has been nominated for splitting
Category:Indo-European legendary creatures has been nominated for splitting. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic warfare has been nominated for deletion
Category:Italic warfare has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sources of ancient Iranian religion has been nominated for deletion
Category:Sources of ancient Iranian religion has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Sources of Indo-European religion has been nominated for deletion
Category:Sources of Indo-European religion has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European legends has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European legends 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European fairy tales has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European fairy tales 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Celtic ethnic groups has been nominated for deletion
Category:Celtic ethnic groups has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic archaeological cultures has been nominated for deletion
Category:Italic archaeological cultures has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic people has been nominated for deletion
Category:Italic people has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic history has been nominated for merging
Category:Italic history 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European archaeology has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European archaeology 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic archaeological sites has been nominated for merging
Category:Italic archaeological sites 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Italic art has been nominated for merging
Category:Italic art 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Celtic fairy tales has been nominated for deletion
Category:Celtic fairy tales has been nominated for deletion. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European gods has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European gods 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Celtic history has been nominated for merging
Category:Celtic history 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Family by culture has been nominated for merging
Category:Family by culture 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. Mason (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Indo-European art has been nominated for deletion
Category:Indo-European art has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello Krakkos:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steven Roger Fischer


The article Steven Roger Fischer has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "These sources aren't wp:RSS. I cannot find any RSS online. The details about him are self circulating and limited."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European tribes has been nominated for merging
Category:Indo-European tribes 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European peoples templates has been nominated for splitting
Category:Indo-European peoples templates has been nominated for splitting. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European culture has been nominated for deletion
Category:Indo-European culture has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European archaeology has been nominated for splitting
Category:Indo-European archaeology has been nominated for splitting. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European history has been nominated for renaming
Category:Indo-European history has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European genetics has been nominated for deletion
Category:Indo-European genetics has been nominated for deletion. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Sexuality by culture has been nominated for merging
Category:Sexuality by culture 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. Mason (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sexuality in early Germanic culture has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sexuality in early Germanic culture has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy by culture has been nominated for merging
Category:Philosophy by culture 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. Mason (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Krakkos!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Krakkos, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Mann Mann (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thank you Mann Mann for the greeting and your contributions. I wish you a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year as well! Krakkos (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Economies by culture has been nominated for renaming
Category:Economies by culture has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Children by culture has been nominated for merging
Category:Children by culture has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Marriage in early Germanic culture has been nominated for merging
Category:Marriage in early Germanic culture has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Early Germanic economy has been nominated for renaming
Category:Early Germanic economy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical Germanic peoples has been nominated for merging to
Category:Historical Germanic peoples has been nominated for merging to. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Place Clichy (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Celtic legends has been nominated for merging
Category:Celtic legends has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Italic archaeology has been nominated for merging
Category:Italic archaeology has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. NLeeuw (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Early Germanic music has been nominated for merging
Category:Early Germanic music has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)