User talk:Tewdar/Archive 1

Cornish phonology
Hello! Thanks for your article on Cornish phonology, it's quite good and I've moved it to article space. Hope to see you around. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Cornish phonology (tables)
I'm afraid you're misinterpreting my edits. The convention in Wikipedia's consonant tables is to place fortes on the left and lenes on the right. It has nothing to do whatsoever with phonemicity. Look at the IPA table par excellence. The way the first subtable is organized and the commentary beneath it is exactly what I'm referring to. Cf. also e.g. Welsh phonology. The way the tables in the Old Cornish and Late Cornish sections look now suggests that β̃ is a lenis counterpart of β etc. It's nonsense. β is already lenis, just like β̃, and their fortis counterparts would be ɸ and ɸ̃, respectively (if the latter is possible at all). The Middle Cornish section, on the other hand, clearly explains the breach of convention with voiced and voiceless labels (like e.g. Inuit_phonology), so I let it be. 89.171.39.202 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, then change the tables to put the fortes on the left and lenes on the right. I'll do it myself later if you like. Don't merge two cells (== phonemes) into one, though, like you did with /n/ and /nn/, /m/ and /mm/ etc. The Middle Cornish section needs to be brought in line with the other tables. Please, there has been enough crap here about whether /m/ and /mm/ eg are two phonemes, it is essential that these phonemes have their own cells. Tewdar (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * also, obviously /β̃/ is a nasalised /β/. Perhaps we should have an extra column for this feature i.e. bilabial (nasalized), as well as column labels for geminate / singleton (or fortis /lenis - there is a fair bit of debate about this) - what do you think? Tewdar (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, I'm not sure myself. Not all tables use the '1 phoneme per cell' convention (e.g. Welsh phonology again). On the other hand, I thought I saw a case where there were two lenis phonemes in one cell next to an empty one, but I can't find it now.
 * If there were two lenis phonemes in one cell, it was probably a result of someone else repeatedly changing the tables despite knowing nothing of the phonemic inventory of Cornish. Over and over and over and over again. Which is probably why I was (unfairly) a bit unpleasant towards you. Sorry about that. :-/ Tewdar (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the Middle Cornish section looks good as it is. Fortis vs. lenis in stops seems analogical to long vs. short in sonorants, but the precise mechanism is different, so it might be harder to agree on the labels than on the shape of the table... 89.171.39.202 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. 'Hard to agree' pretty much sums up Cornish Historical Phonology. Look at George's reconstruction of Middle Cornish consonants, for example. He argues that, as a result of English loans not conforming to the original system, Middle Cornish has a system where many new phonemes arise. So the long vs short contrast no longer only applies to just the sonants according to this view (which is controversial, and is the reason why these extra phonemes are in brackets)
 * I am not a huge fan of the Middle Cornish table's voiced / voiceless rows. Why not divide the voiceless stops into long / short rows too? I think it just adds extra complexity to what is already quite a complicated table...Tewdar (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Cornish phonology. User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for reviewing the article. I am pleased you found it useful. Tewdar (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 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. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You should add examples to the article
I'm well versed in Brythonic linguistics, but I must say your article is rather unclear outside of the tables and some listed changes. While you've solidly copied the major works on Cornish phonology in recent times since Jackson - no small feat - the fact the article is devoid of any examples (of words and their pronunciation, of the evolution of some words from Proto-Celtic) or the orthography makes it almost unusable. For instance, I am working on Cornish myself and don't have access to those references because of the quarantine - nothing can help me know what  is in a given text (especially given the lack of orthographic convention in what was a regional, non-unified language), nor indeed how a certain phoneme actually appears in certain words (when, where and why is /m:/ said to come about? How is it represented, if it isn't, what is it the outcome of?). Could something be done about this ABAlphaBeta (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC) What, like /a/ eg PC *tatos > LBr. *tad@h > Pr. Corn *tad ( OCV) > MCorn *taz (MS )... that sort of stuff? Tewdar (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Or /mm/ eg Brit. /kambos/ > MCorn. /kamm/? Tewdar (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC) The thing is, apart from some minor table fixes, the whole thing is pretty much done by me. It would be nice if someone else would contribute something useful to the article besides me. Collaboration and all that... Tewdar (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC) By the way, I rarely check my own talk page, so it may be better to discuss things on the article talk page. Your suggestion that the phonemes be illustrated with examples is a good one, maybe I'll start on that soon. Tewdar (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good job, but....
WP:DFTT, ow howeth! I wish I knew this one in Cornish :) –Austronesier (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Da yw genam omdowla hoghes. (= I like to wrestle pigs) - Tewdar (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case don't stop until they're gosogen! –Austronesier (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen their antics before WP:revdel, that guy hurled the vilest slurs on three talk pages (under the pretext to prove that WP wouldn't block them; but no one writes such stuff even when putting on act unless they are racist down to the marrow themselves). Let's see if they still keep on wasting time as IP (as they did before). –Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I only started looking at Wikipedia 10 minutes after his edits became invisible. I think he needs a long walk in the fresh air... Tewdar (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tartessian
Hi! Here's a negative review of Kaufmann's book by Hewitt:. It's actually also a nice review of the Celtic hypothesis in general, so maybe you also want to make use of it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks very much, I haven't read that one before. Much appreciated! Tewdar (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Bell Beaker
Nice that you want to add new pictures to the atlas for the bell beaker culture. However your pictures seem to exclude the Bell-beaker excavations made in By, Denmark, and several other places. I took the liberty of restoring the bell-beaker article to its original state. There is nothing wrong with adding a more detailed overview unless it subtracts archeological findings. Cheers.
 * Yeah, I know, you're right. I thought the map I used captured the "essence" of the BB culture a bit better, but you're right, we can't omit the missing areas. That was the only other free map I could find at the time, so... Tewdar (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle
Do you use WP:Twinkle? It's a handy tool that makes it easy to hand out escalating warnings to other users for policy violations like unsourced editing. Don't miss the chance next time kurgans r us adds unsourced fluff. –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's done it again. The ref he's on about is already there, and doesn't support what he's saying. And no, I don't know about Twinkle, or anything on WP really... Tewdar (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, have you read https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535 it says around a third of Fatyanovo were blond and/or blue eyed, but the table says 4% blond and 21% blue eyed, according to my understanding. Tewdar (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Steppe and genes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704868/ Yes multiple genes but hirisplex prediction is based on kiltg alone for blonde hair and this 2014 article shows how incredibly Small of a percent modern northern Europeans are derived at kiltg, it's less than your Allentoft table on bronze age steppe, hirisplex prediction skin color is based on a5 and a2, yet east Asians show large variation of skin color and almost zero at both major light alleles and much much less than fatyanovo! Hirisplex prediction would make every single eastern Asian dark to black despite some in Mongolia china and Japan can be quite fair, outliers in Mongolia today still have blonde hair and again no kiltg gene, and for some reason one copy of blue eyed gene still comes out brown even though modern green eyed people have one copy of blue eyed gene Kurgans r us (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like phenotype prediction from SNPs is not an exact science... yet ;-) Tewdar (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea there is still more to learn, east Asians could have there separate light skin alleles we haven't found, I mean it's likely western hunter gatherers are just genetically different enough so they have completely different light skin genes that went extinct, I mean they lived at that latitude much longer than Anatolian farmers, in the 2017 study I will link at bottom they found a new derived gene that makes skin darker in the darkest African populations, yet this lack of a dark gene in every one else is not interpreted in hirisplex prediction, neanderthal has been proven to have a small percent of red hair that is a completely different version then the European variant, people in Pacific islands have a separate blonde gene completely separate from any European variant Kurgans r us (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color Kurgans r us (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) understand how the MFSD12 mutations help make darker skin, the researchers reduced expression of the gene in cultured cells, mimicking the action of the variants in dark-skinned people. The cells produced more eumelanin, the pigment responsible for black and brown skin, hair, and eyes. The mutations may also change skin color by blocking yellow pigments: When the researchers knocked out MFSD12 in zebrafish and mice, red and yellow pigments were lost, and the mice’s light brown coats turned gray. “This new mechanism for producing intensely dark pigmentation is really the big story,” says Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University in State College. - 2017 study on African skin color. When they discovered this for variants that do the opposite it becomes a foundation of prediction quickly, this has been ignored for four years now Kurgans r us (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Something else interesting Razib Khan has a interesting conversation with a eastern Asian lady in comment section, he explains that he is dark skin and brown eyed and his wife yet two of his kids have green eyes and one has dirty blonde hair, the eastern Asian lady said mixing her brown eyes with her blue eyed English spouse again the result was green eyed not more brown Kurgans r us (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Also how is it that Greco Roman and Chinese historians describe the steppe people the exact same way bordering from opposite ends of the steppe, how do even Greek and Roman description match exactly the same at the end of the day two different empires two different times, all three of them explain that western sythians, have red hair and blue/green eyes, and art from tarim basin is from the saka period not the older androvono mummies from 1800 bc who also clearly have light hair red, light brown and blonde, the saka art is predominantly blonde and red, yet according to DNA evidence, red hair is basically close to non exsistance in ancient world, only shows up in very rare circumstances much more rare then blonde even, although what we have found does correlate with steppe people, hardly any of them actually have red hair according to hirisplex prediction, this really makes no sense, even Egypt has description of run ins with red hair people and apparently saw it as influence from the god set who Egypt considered a "red head"people in the middle east and Islamic Africa dye their hair red in old age to mimic Mohammed, and red hair in early middle ages is considered a Jewish trait, vikings in the 2020 study every obsessed over the lack of blondes even though about a third were blonde but the media leaves that out but the point is that not only were these hugely populated areas after they had been mixing with the rest of Europe many of them were not even Scandinavian at all, Arab and English translation of viking encounters specific mentioned the high frequency of blonde hair in vikings, and Iceland has been inhabited by decent of vikings as they are the only ones to go there, modern Iceland is very blonde and light eyed, vikings were the only ones to colonize it, so how do they figure vikings were so unblonde? Cuz again they based it on kiltg alone and despite the fact they have more derived kiltg than modern northern Europeans, also notice how they claim how multi ethnic vikings were in the study based on Irish vikings and Sami, not exactly the other side of the world, and the media claim Sammi are "closer to eastern Asia then europe" this is completely untrue, they have some admixture from east Asia but other than that they have same components as other Europeans, Kurgans r us (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC) And another point about skin color look up the statue of "nofret" from the 4th dynasty of ancient Egypt built around 2600 bc, this statue has very light skin and blue eyes, and the king is intermediate/tan, this is far from the only Egyptian art with these features, so people in Egypt 2600 bc according to contemporary people could be as light as a European, but hirisplex prediction says 43 percent of fatyanovo individuals were "dark to black" I highly doubtful of that, in the lastest paper on avars and migration period there is a red hair light skin sample, that is e1b just like rameses 2, yet people say cuz he is e1b he couldn't of had red hair and must be mummification process, second in 2020 a paper came out that proved tut and his family were r1b, even though the media claim Sweden made it up when they first said this many years ago, and now they claim it could be African v88 yet the lastest paper on African v88 says it only been in Africa for 400 years and v88 has been found in ancient Europeans not Africans, not only that the mtdna is all K, which is a neolithic European farmer lineage not a African lineage, same with Yuya, they claim his blonde hair is from mummification yet he is g2a and K, both Eurasian haplogroup and again a European neolithic farmer lineage on both y and Mt,so how can anyone debate that this r1b is from Chad or Cameroon Kurgans r us (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofret Kurgans r us (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5 Here is 2019 study on migration period, Magyars, Huns, and avars, we see that we have a red hair, blue eyed, pale skin e1b sample, and multiple r1a z93 with either blonde or light brown/dirty blonde hair even as late as 8th century ad, and we see that even this late going into middle ages two thirds of DNA of even Huns are west Eurasian not east Asian, yet history channel makes the sythians in 700 bc look like modern mongols, despite the fact that data on sythians show the western sythians had trace levels to none at all for east Asia admixture while the far eastern steppe only had 25 percent eastern Asian admixture Kurgans r us (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457 sythians study 2018 Kurgans r us (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Genetic relationships between Eurasian steppe nomads and present-day populations PCA on the autosomal genomic data (Fig. 1C and table S5) revealed the following: (i) Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individuals exhibited genetic affinity to northern and northeastern present-day Europeans (fig. S3), and these results were also consistent with outgroup f3 statistics (table S6 and fig. S4A). (ii) The Cimmerian individuals, representing the time period of transition from Bronze to Iron Age, were not homogeneous regarding their genetic similarities to present-day populations according to the PCA. F3 statistics confirmed the heterogeneity of these individuals in comparison with present-day populations (table S6 and figs. S3 and S4C). (iii) The Scythians reported in this study, from the core Scythian territory in the North Pontic steppe (12), showed high intragroup diversity. In the PCA, they are positioned as four visually distinct groups compared to the gradient of present-day populations (Fig. 1C): (i) A group of three individuals (scy009, scy010, and scy303) showed genetic affinity to north European populations, hereafter referred to as a north European (NE) cluster. (ii) A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster. (iii) A group of three individuals (scy006, scy011, and scy193) located between the genetic variation of Mordovians and populations of the North Caucasus, hereafter referred to as a steppe cluster (SC). In addition, one Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individual (kzb004), the most recent Cimmerian (cim357), and all Sarmatians fell within this cluster. In contrast to the Scythians, and despite being from opposite ends of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the five Sarmatians grouped close together in this cluster. (iv) A group of three Scythians (scy301, scy304, and scy311) formed a discrete group between the SC and SE and had genetic affinities to present-day Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, and Turkish populations, hereafter referred to as a central cluster (CC). All PCA results were consistent with outgroup f3 statistics (table S6 and figs. S3 and S4, B and D). Finally, one individual from a Scythian cultural context (scy332) is positioned outside of the modern West Eurasian genetic variation (Fig. 1C) but shared genetic drift with East Asian populations (table S6 and fig. S4B).- end quote So clearly scubnya who is identical genetically to sintashta/androvono overlaps with modern northern and eastern European, and even later sythians fit into multiple clusters none of which are a predominantly east Asian ethnic group, they have a northern European cluster identical to iron age Sweden! And a south europe cluster a steppe (Russian, Mordovia, and Ukrainian) cluster and finally a Tatar cluster closely related to eastern European turkic Kupchak people, not kazar turkic or any of the more east Asian turkic ethnic groups, so how did the history channel decide to make every single sythian completely east Asian in the lastest special on the silk road weed trade? Kurgans r us (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2021/05/18/all-the-yamnaya-horizon-zone-people-looked-the-same/ This is a link I already sent before on other thread idk if you saw this, look at the wildly different results that Razib Khan got from fatyanovo, same exact set of samples from saag and may 2021 so after it was published, and his motto on his page is "discussion on all things brown" this is not something he would advocate or make up Kurgans r us (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC) And you notice the new version of table 2 the samples that original were blonde were not moved to the bottom category of brown/black hair, but put into a separate bracket that says brown/dark brown, even though that was included in darkest category already and a light brown category is non exsist, why is this? Cuz they have a lot of light hair genes but they don't have kiltg, which as I tried to show is way over dramatic with the claims of it's importance or nessesity to have blonde hair Kurgans r us (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240361/ This last link is just to back up what I said earlier about African r1b v88 and when it entered the gene pool, most recent info on it 2018 Kurgans r us (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Also think about this, if western hunter gatherer had no selection for lighter phenotype how did oca2/herc reach a frequency of 100 percent! It was not at that frequency in oldest samples not even close, the variant for red hair also has large affect on skin color hence why Irish are even lighter than other European countries, this variant is semi derived or one copy in cheddar Man and is suspiciously high in the total of western hunter gatherers quite a few even have two copies, I have a copy myself one, I do not have red hair proper, but I do have auburn hair, a brown color with a red tint, yet again one copy in hirisplex prediction is always still dark hair, according to bio bank of England a2 affects hair more than skin and someone with derived fully (2 copies) are seven times more likely to have light hair, notice sardina has the lowest fraction of a2 in Europe still fair/intermediate skin but much less light hair then central and northern Europeans, the most common hair color of Europe north of the Alps is light brown/dirty blonde, not brown, and there numbers of kiltg, a2 and herc, match perfectly with bronze age steppe, Kurgans r us (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Back in 2007 two different neanderthals in two different locations were found with mcir, as far as I know that is the exact same European variant, yet they claim today these are two completely different genes, they also said that a experiment was conducted with culture of bacteria to see how the gene interacted with melainated production, and it had a huge affect similar to what it does in humans, which according to them is "red hair and fair skin" not just red hair, so they literally watched this reaction yet don't seem to think anything is off with hirisplex prediction even though it hasn't predicted a single neanderthal as anything other than "dark to black" and "black hair" even the samples with this gene, There is a article by David Reich recently, where he discusses genetic papers being "politically correct" instead of scientifically correct, and believes it is a major problem in the field right now, he even says some finds are not discussed at all, for example even his own paper on the first seven yamnya samples said "overwhelmingly dark hair and eyes" but never mentioned that the oldest sample in the study was a eastern hunter gatherer the ancestors of yamnya was 7750 years old and blond hair, blue eyed and light skin with r1b and we wouldn't find out for three years, 2015 Allentoft states that light skin was in high frequency by bronze age and corded ware had a intermediate frequency of light eyes, but saag is claiming that corded ware is either intermediate or dark skin and changed all his light hair samples, there is supplement tables in the study, according to these tables fatyanovo is 99 percent derived at a5 and 62 percent derived at a2, that is not dark skin there is nobody outside of Europe even today that would match that frequency, in fact it is the exact same frequency as sardina, Kurgans r us (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/were-neandertals-the-orig/ Kurgans r us (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Look at the supplement tables for fatyanovo, how does 99 percent derived a5 and 62 percent derived a2 equal "43 percent dark to black" and the rest only intermediate. Not even the lightest modern population of middle east is 50 percent derived at a2 and they have a slightly lower a5 level as well still around 90 but all European modern and bronze age are at 99 for a5, the lightest modern population of India the jatts have almost no a2 and have lower a5 as well but still have a high frequency, sintashta is 99 derived a5 and 92 derived at a2 no different than a modern central European, when you compare these numbers of a5 and a2, herc, kiltg, etc to ancient populations how is hirisplex prediction making the predictions it does, makes no sense, the math is not adding up Kurgans r us (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Frequency-of-the-374F-allele-of-the-SLC45A2-gene-in-10-cities-across-Europe-and-Africa_tbl2_301774569 Just to back up my claims on a2 this shows the frequency of 10 different populations, France is at 89 percent derived, that's three percent lower than sintashta! Berbers in morroco match the a2 of fatyanovo, would you say morroco atlas mountain berbers are "dark to black" Kurgans r us (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC) A more accurate name of the morroco population would be "amazigh" as they don't refer to themselves as Berbers Kurgans r us (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium/potassium/calcium_exchanger_5 The same population in morroco also is not fully derived at a5 so the match on a2 is not a one for one match and fatyanovo would most likely be slightly lighter than your average amazigh from morroco Kurgans r us (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Corded Ware culture references
I think that I've achieved what you were aiming at: let me know if not! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good, please forgive my crappy citation attempts, I try my best... Tewdar (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all – sfn is complicated and frequently a pain in the neck. Thank-you for your work on the article.  Wham2001 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vocabularium Cornicum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lemma. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sex stuff
Hey Tewdar, good to see you in the mix at Sex and gender distinction. Hope your loins are girded. I'm here to express my hope that you can color in the lines a bit more when it comes to civility. For example, it's not that I don't think that Crossroads has been intransigent but that saying so at the article talk is unlikely to help and likely to lead to wasted words on conduct when there's plenty of content dispute to go around. Anyway, I doubt it feels good to have someone show up and say "play nice" so here's a sandwich. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC) - Thanks, I love food (and even friendly advice!), I'll put it in a new section below the barnstars. I think 'intransigent' is actually an unimprovable word under the circumstances, but out of respect for you and your uplifting behaviour here, I will strike it through. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too! I'm not pushing for a strike, really. This is more of a "let's keep some clean hands" kind of situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk)

- I struck it through anyhow. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here only to say that maybe you should try to chill a bit? The amount of commenting you have done in a single discussion is approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory. Just, like, chill.. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am perfectly 'chilled', and I am trying to propose multiple suggestions for compromise, not 'force my point of view', so no BLUDGEON. Thanks for your advice, hope to see you again in the discussion. Tewdar (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Phone number
Yeah sorry about that. I have no idea why my device keeps adding phone numbers to Articles.CycoMa (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wrote on your talk page about the same thing. Okay, I'll be sure to look out for that. Kemmer with! Tewdar (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

De Gruyter 2009
Hi, looking at the Cornish language article there are multiple references to a De Gruyter 2009, which doesn't exist in the bibliography. You added the first reference on 25 September 2021, are you able to say what the work is you are referencing? --Cdjp1 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: an International Handbook, but the year should have been 2016. I think I've fixed them all now. Thanks for spotting that. Tewdar (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we end that discussion
Someone at ANI reported the things we have been saying at that Sex and Gender distinction. They reported us for WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and other things. That means admins are now scrolling through all the things we were saying back there. They are gonna decide whether or not some of the things we were saying are okay. So I recommend you, me, and other editors stop commenting on there for a while and wait and see what admins think about the matter.CycoMa (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC) link? Tewdar (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [| Here].CycoMa (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't ask me...
When I created the page User talk:O͓͓͓͓͓͚͚͚͚͚k224 I was confronted by a prominent red notice saying "This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist". Evidently that is not true. Goodness knows why it said that. JBW (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Posts by banned users
Actually, there's WP:BANREVERT, so you can just remove such uninformed crap as the stuff recently posted. I think I can't do so now because of your subsequent comments. –Austronesier (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:0:0:0:0/64. Nothing escapes our awsome admins. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's not difficult to identify, is he? 😁 Tewdar (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Once spotted, the WP:DUCKCyberduck icon.png-test yields a clear result (Template:Megaphoneduck). –Austronesier (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede Workshop at Kathleen Stock
Alrighty, structural changes done. Might have missed one or two of your edits so if you could give it a once over I'd appreciate it, and I combined all of your rewording segments for sentence 4 into one, to make it look more sensical to other editors. :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I dunno if mobile editing has this, but desktop editing has a "Show Preview" button that allows you to preview what your changes will look like in context. Might help with formatting issues, missing sigs, etc? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to separate "her views", accusations of transphobia, and academic freedom into separate sections tbh. Apart from that, good work. Tewdar (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's your proposed rewording of the sentence, make it how you like :). Just keep it in a format that makes it easy and clear for other editors to read/digest. I recognise that sentence is difficult to do it for though, because they're both intractable and not-intractable. Only reason I combined them with the structural changes was that it made it much clearer what the proposed rewording of the entire sentence, in situ was. When it was three separate proposed rewordings it was kinda unclear how the sentence would read, especially if those three go as separate questions to the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for help out
Thanks for helping out at my article RainFurrest. I really do appreciate it.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Apparently you are a furry as well. Lol.(this comment is a joke don't take it seriously)CycoMa1 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I just look furry. Tewdar (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * be warned those furry articles might accidentally turn you into a furry. No joke lol.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RainFurrest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Furry. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you sign?
Could you sign this edit? If you want to make the bullet points collaborative, that's fine, but then maybe add a comment to that effect after the bulleted list and sign that? I don't feel that I can comment until it's signed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I signed it before the bullets, but, alright. Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thing is, it would look weird for me to discuss it after your sig and before the bullets, and would also look weird to discuss it after the bullets with no sig before my comment. IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything okay now? Tewdar (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you just gonna eff up my bullet points with your waffling now? Tewdar (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what I did; btw, I am reasonably sure you wouldn't have wanted me to use an interlinear approach with my comments - someone reminded me recently that that is the other way we dinosaurs used to respond to one another. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Even some dinosaurs evolve! 🐔🐓🦃🐧🐦🐥🐤🐣🦅🦜🦆🦢🦉 Tewdar (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney on JK Rowling Talk page
that's the second time you've tried to shoehorn in irrelevant discussion on Wayne Rooney. It was disruptive then, and it continues to be disruptive now. Stop doing that. Stick to the topic at hand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just an analogy. If we look at press reports, Rooney is probably almost as famous for soliciting prostitutes as he is for football. Calling this "disruptive" is preposterous. Tewdar (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that may be the case, and if that comment was made on a page about Wayne Rooney it would not be disruptive. As it's being made on a page about JK Rowling, with absolutely no context or hints that it may be an analogy either time, it comes across as disruptive due to it being entirely and completely off topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

More on Rooney
Re: the previous back and forth: I'm not sure what counts as "disruptive", exactly, but I don't think you're reading the room very well with the Rooney nonsense. The moment Rooney starts weighing in on human rights issues, the situation will change, but you have been trying to compare public bits of Rooney's personal life with Rowling's repeated public pronouncements on a political issue. That comparison is what we in the biz call "a red herring". Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of stuff from Rooney about racism. Political views of Wayne Rooney article will be in draft space by next weekend, hopefully. Tewdar (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I look forward to high-quality academic sourcing, then. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly Washington Post, Guardian, Independent, BBC... much like the JK Rowling article, which isn't exactly bursting with "high-quality academic sourcing" itself. Hey, perhaps you can review the article when it's ready! Tewdar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is this - any good? Tewdar (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FFS. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Why should you mind being wrong if someone can show you that you are?" 🙄 Tewdar (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I'd ever seen a parody reference AJ Ayer, before. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a parody?!?! 😭 Most of my article was going to be based on that! Tewdar (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, a Spoof! article. I stand corrected. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi
You recently made an edit diff with the summary "[...] so my vote hopefully isn't ignored". Just wanted to reach out to say that even though we significantly disagree on the discussion there I don't think your opinion and arguments will be ignored (or at least, I hope they aren't). RfCs arent vote based and the closer is required to weigh consensus by discussion and not just tallying votes, so if the wording in your vote comment is not accurate but your arguments elsewhere in the discussion are, I'm sure the closer will take them into account. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC is hilarious. First, Amanda A. Brant comes along trying to insert "Rowling's (allegedly) transphobic views" into the first sentence, leading to an RfC which was SNOW closed because nobody agreed with this. Then, this RfC is started, resulting in a (current) majority for leaving it out of the lede entirely, amidst much finger-wagging and "your vote doesn't count" commentary from those opposing this option, with suggestions of an emergency "this RfC is invalid anyway" last-resort option at the end of it all. So now we are stuck with a month-long RfC, for a lede that was actually 'relatively' stable. Tewdar (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By straw poll, it is very close to 50/50 - it is a good thing that, by policy, WP:CONSENSUS is not based on a straw poll. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be worst. Some editor who's angry with Rowling's comments, could nominate the BLP for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar English
I'm glad you liked it! I was feeling pretty self-satisfied. If it helps to have another data point on reading the room, I do think that discussion might be at a temporary limit for exasperated humor. Firefangledfeathers 14:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire topic area seems to be devoid of humour. Good to see you over there btw. I just realized that the sarcasm was directed at a user who suspects they may have Asperger's, oops. My friend has Asperger's, and she always be like "was that sarcasm?" about six times whenever I say anything... anyway, no more jokes or sarcasm on that discussion from me, I promise! Tewdar (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Devoid of humor" is an understatement! Firefangledfeathers 18:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors who don't think magic helmets or A. J. Ayer are funny. Pshaw! Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The only other person I have ever seen use "pshaw!" this century is Nicholas Williams (poet) 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Well now Tewdar, I find that analogy to be highly invalid, for the following 649 reasons...", "No, Tewdar, this comparison is WP:UNDUE, let me show you why in 345,233 bytes...", "Tewdar,stop these WP:ASPERSIONS, before you find yourself at WP:ANI or WP:AE or WP:SOMEWHERE_ELSE..." 😂 Tewdar (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was working up my self-mocking retro-lingo.
 * As far as the rest, you should recognize that my extreme measures imply that I don't regard you as entirely beyond the language horizon, in spite of my difficulties with Tewdar English. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the second part was a response to FFF, not you. I had in mind a kind of imaginary "hybrid editor" telling me off, based on yourself, Crossroads, and Sideswipe9th. A genuinely terrifying concept... Tewdar (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * * shudders Firefangledfeathers 18:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a disturbing chimera. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. Hybrid chimera editor that disagrees with itself regularly! Sometimes even in the same sentence! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

AFDs
Howdy. FWIW, I would support the deletion of the Politics of J. K. Rowling article. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll nominate it once the fustercluck that is the RfC is over. Tewdar (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sideline whistle
You just got smacked down, dude. "Journal of Wherever Whatever", written by the bloody janitor, indeed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my characterisation of that article. Tewdar (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you stand by an ad hominem argument against peer-reviewed work. So much cavilling and kvetching. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I had presented a source like that at the Sex-gender distinction discussions, you'd have been huffin' and puffin' for 125,000 bytes. I gave you sources 100x better that that which you rejected as WP:NOT_PROFESSOR_FOR_LONG_ENOUGH or WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE or WP:WHATEVER. So don't talk such rot - it is a rubbish article by someone with no qualifications. Tewdar (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's still ad hominem, and still not how RS policy works. Also note that there is a difference in source evaluation between sourcing a specific claim, which may or may not be contested by other sources, and sourcing "scholarship treats this issue as significant". But as I suggested at the article Talk page, source analysis doesn't seem to be your thang. You seem to lead with your conclusions, when it comes to sourcing: if you want to dismiss it, it's bad, and if you want to use it, it's good. And there is a quantitative Tewdar-based measure whereby the latter sources are 100x better than the former. Poppycock. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I have real serious trouble analysing sources for inclusion in articles. Please, please, help me, doooooooooood... Tewdar (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given your syntactical trouble at Gender identity, I'm surprised you do better in more complex semantic fields. Maybe just stay away from your known areas of prejudice, then. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, I have never edited that page. You're thinking of another article, and it wasn't my syntax you didn't like, but that of the RS. Tewdar (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote all of those articles, btw, almost 100% on my own. So I know how to analyse sources, tyvm. Tewdar (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What page was it? And when you "paraphrase" the syntax of sources in article space, it becomes your syntax.
 * And I would encourage you to write more such articles, rather than engaging in IDONTLINKEIT source criticism on controversial topics. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You want me to tell you the page where you didn't like my syntax? 🤪 I believe it was Sex and gender distinction, and I was trying to stick to the terminology used in the source (which you described as a metaphysical primordial soup or something). And thanks for the encouragement, but let me tell you... there is nothing in this world more controversial than the phonological history of Cornish. Hey, perhaps you can distract me by editing that... Tewdar (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, not that I like boasting about how great I am, but I would say the sex and gender distinction article is significantly better after my input, wouldn't you? Tewdar (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If ArbCom has sanctioned Cornish philology, I'm afraid I haven't seen the template. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that the (evident) gains to the clarity of the sex and gender article were worth the (acute) pain of the process. But maybe you could look at Gender role? I sense some acute pain coming, and don't see how you could make that experience any worse than it is already destined to be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, Crossroads suffered most of the pain on that one,didn't he? I can't be blamed if you lot have to be dragged kicking and screaming to improve your articles, can I? Why, it barely mentioned critical, fundamental issues, had a focus on gametes, and had the worst lede ever - definitely worth it imo. So, you want me to cause trouble over at gender role instead of the RfC, is that it? And how much did you pay DuncanHill to spot a cite error on the Cornish language page? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't even venmo :p. And I can't prevent you from causing trouble at the RfC, but Gender role could actually benefit from your attention. Also, I want to see the Tewdar:Maneesh cage match. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL and take it to heart
Posting this after being called on your rudeness was a major lapse of judgement. If ANI had a better track record dealing with civility issues, I would post a raft of your diffs there right now, but instead consider yourself warned. If you keep on punching down, it will be worth the trouble. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read my edit, I really would be happy to use such sources in the future. Tewdar (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "peer"? Firefangledfeathers 21:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it has been reviewed by experts, eg people with PhDs, reviewing a layperson's paper, then it's sort of not really peer-reviewed, hence "peer". I can understand why people thought that was sarcasm, but it really wasn't - there's quite a lot of stuff in eg archaeology that gets written by "Mr." whoever that I thought couldn't be included in WP, so... Tewdar (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if it isn't all the sarcastic chickens coming home to roost! Firefangledfeathers 21:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, read my other stuff I've written this evening - I'm clearly trying not to cause too much trouble, aren't I? Or if that isn't clear, perhaps I should just stay away from the whole topic area and do something else. Perhaps that would be for the best. Tewdar (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, point taken, mea maxamissima culpa, etc. etc. Tewdar (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Didnt you say you had a joke about pasties, or something? Tewdar (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's zam-zoddled right now. Firefangledfeathers 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to post on that page at all this evening, but someone pinged me. ☹️ Tewdar (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a former academic, who has been the first name author on two papers, one does not need a PhD to be considered an expert or knowledgeable in their field. There are many reasons as to why academia, especially at the highest levels, is inaccessible to people who are otherwise experts in their field. Also the use of scare quotes around peer is uncalled for. While the peer-review is double-blind, and almost certainly involves academics and experts across the world, by nature of Hotine's job they are her peers as they may be her colleague or hold the same role at another institution even if she herself does not have a PhD. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks, I already apologised for leaving out her credentials, I further apologise for the scare quotes if they were incorrectly used. I really wasn't being sarcastic though, as I said above. Despite my problems getting along with people in general, I feel like we had some pleasant interactions at times on other articles and discussions. Tewdar (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely, and I'm sure we'll work well together again! Apology accepted and we're all good. { Like we disagree from time to time, but that's just part of life. It's just in that context, it came across as sarcastic even though that wasn't your intent. I've always found it's easier to just be upfront, to try and head off any sort of misunderstandings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S, if there's any article where you think I can be helpful, feel free to ping me into the discussion any time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

AE comment
Concerning this: I don't think that is what Maneesh was saying, and it certainly wasn't what I was filing about. As I said before, please resist the temptation to punch down - to clarify, statements of support for the idea that gender identity is akin to the belief that one might be a space alien are going to read to most Wikipedians as "punching down". Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm punching up. And I'm pretty sure that Maneesh never said that gender identity is akin to the belief that one might be a space alien. Remind me again why you prefer statements like "has X as a gender identity" to "identifies as X"? Tewdar (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely because "has a gender identity" offers grammatical support for a gender identity being real in much the same way as "has a delusion" offers grammatical support for a real delusion. And Maneesh plainly stated that men and women identity as men and women in the same sense as they identify as royalty or space aliens. Either Maneesh believes in the reptoid theory, or he believes that people identify as what they are not (or as things that may not even exist).
 * Also, to say that men identify as women and women identify as men is simply less precise and useful than saying that someone assigned male at birth may have a female gender identity, because "assigned male at birth" uses "male" in a clearly defined way and "female gender identity" uses "female" in an equally clearly defined (and distinct) way. Aristotelian logic is thereby preserved, for people who care about that sort of thing. Saying "some men identify as women" doesn't do that, since it may be using "men" in the sense of AMAB - or it may not. It may be using "women" in the sense of "female gender identity", or it may not - in particular, it may mean "some people of the male sex believe they are biologically female", which might seem improbable but is actually the argument from the FRINGE perspective that gender identity really is the cognitive awareness of one's biological sex, and anything else is pathology.
 * Making deliberately loose statements while apparently believing that last thing, and editing article space accordingly, is what makes Maneesh's contributions uniquely disruptive IMO. I don't see how you don't see the downward punch. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Maneesh's "lack of precision" is shared with most articles in the entire topic area, which conflates sex and gender with impunity. Unfortunately there is no site-wide consensus on suitable terminology. I don't find Maneesh's contributions "uniquely disruptive" - he has a lot of competition. I'm not at all convinced that claims such as "99% of breast cancer occurs in those assigned female at birth" would be an improvement on the intelligibility or accuracy of the sex differences in medicine article. Pretty sure that cancer likelihood doesn't increase based on sex assignment. I'm not exactly sure what Maneesh is trying to say re gender identity. He says English is his first language, but if that's true, he doesn't really seem to think through what he's saying before he bursts into print. At least, that's how it appears to me. Tewdar (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maneesh's deliberately engineered spaces of precision and ambiguity seemed quite calculated to me. As did his obfuscation about transgender population statistics. I didn't see anything opaque there.
 * And the thing about cancer statistics is that, by and large, we should follow the literature and use whatever terms are most clear. If the literature uses woman/female, and it is more clear to use female, then we should do that. If the literature on domestic violence uses female for cis-female in some studies and female for all-female (by gender identity) in other studies, then we should do the necessary traffic control to compare like with like. But what we shouldn't do is the sloppy Maneesh/Crossroads "most health studies use men/male and mean chromosomes because that's what the textbooks say, so let's insert chromosomes where sources don't refer to them while removing clarifying language about the intersections between male sex assignment and female gender identity where they are actually relevant". That approach is POV nonsense, and when applied with a bulldozer it is pretty darn tedious to slog through. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We should always prefer precise language over fuzzy terms that force the reader to deduce what we're talking about. Randomly throwing terms like "woman, female, AFAB..." around, when it is not particularly useful and perhaps even misleading to do so, does nobody any favours. Using "AFAB" for an 8000 year-old skeleton with XX chromosomes is ludicrous. Using "female" for gender identity is confusing. Using "woman" for a biological female is inaccurate. There needs to be some sort of discussion about this. Perhaps then there wouldn't be so much work for the AE crew. Tewdar (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You may agree with Sideswipe9th that the emerging consensus is that "woman" is gender identity and "female" is physiology or genetics, but I agree with Maneesh and Crossroads (!) that the sourced language doesn't support that. The UK Census debate, which someone just added to Sex and gender distinction, makes this point quite clearly: what the UK courts did was to move the instructions from allowing gender identity-based answers to the sex question not to "assigned sex" or "sex at birth" but rather to legal sex, where the M and F mean neither sex nor gender but something in-between - something Judith Butler is more qualified to talk about than most of the rest of us. That doesn't mean sex and gender aren't distinct, but it sure as hell does mean they're complicated, and pretending that "woman" always means one thing and "female" always means a different thing seems at least premature to me, if not farcical. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 'M' for me usually means something like getting my beard pulled by a cheeky four-year-old when carrying them up a big hill on my shoulders when they run out of energy. Tewdar (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling RfC
I am not prepared to continue that digression any further at the RfC; I'm afraid my view of UK nationality questions is extremely FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means, elaborate. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My unpopular opinion is that Englishness, without modifiers and properly speaking, only really applies to the Home counties (including Oxfordshire and Bedfordshire, and possibly Cambridgeshire). Not only Cornwall, but also Northumbria, Cumbria, East Anglia, Wessex, and even Mercia are best understood as subjugated nationalities. FRINGE, I know. :). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We were last to lose our language, the last to bring an army to London, we have distinctive genetics clearly visible on any PCA or Y-DNA haplogroup study, and we have our own flag. But I sort of see what you're saying. East Anglia, Dorset, Somerset, etc. clearly cluster with the rest of the Saxons on the PCA, however. And Devon makes cream teas with the cream and the jam the wrong way round. Tewdar (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Devon wrestlers are rubbish. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't argue against the Cornish being the best of those nationalities, though I suspect the Northumbrians have the best "living language" argument. As far as Devon, Somerset and Dorset, some of my forebears left from there long ago, so I don't object to you trashing that entire region. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything makes more sense, now that I understand a little more about your ancestry. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Neural network
How do you know I'm not a neural network already? The truth is out there ;) Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I already was working under the assumption that you are a neural network. How many hidden layers do you have? 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Beannachtaí na bhFéilte Duit mo chara! I hope whatever you're celebrating over in Cornwall, you have a good one! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nadelik lowen dhiso jy ynwedh, ow howeth! A wodesta Godhalek? Pur dhyskys os ta! 😁❤️ Tewdar (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous diff
To be fair, you did ask for this. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And they say Canadians have no sense of irony. 😐Tewdar (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related note, there is no need to make a donkey of yourself through entirely gratuitous disparagement. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand this - how is the configuration of the page the algorithm Google generates in response to your specific inquiry supposed to be relevant to WP editing? I find myself at a loss. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Google gives the searcher the lede sentence. It doesn't even say "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", thanks to consensus recent editing. I agree that it is not a huge problem. But why comment here? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And why not respond to the other sections too? Don't you find it problematic that the phrase "Jewish intellectuals" is being attributed to someone who never seems to use the phrase? Tewdar (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tewdar, I did respond to that issue in particular.
 * And I don't see the lead sentence Google gives its searchers to be a problem - for people who are uninterested in following the link, the main thing they need to know is precisely that "Cultural Marxism" is the name of a conspiracy theory. I don't see that people who are looking for Marxist humanism, for example, would be put off by this article's lead sentence from finding the information they are looking for, whether by stubbornly clicking the CT link and then seeing the disambiguation link, or by following the algorithm's other offerings such as Western Marxism. To me this is a non-problem.
 * And while I recognise that you feel it to be a problem, this comment communicated your view by employing an entirely unnecessary (IMO) degree of snark: rather beyond the code of repartée if I may say so. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try and trim the fat from your comments a little? The constant extraneous waffle seems to channel my inner snarky asshole. Tewdar (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The one line of my comment, to which you were responding, had pretty much channelled my inner Hemmingway. Once again I am at a loss. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your inner Hemmingway? Should I call WP:999? 😱 Tewdar (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we doing Hemingway? I obscenity in the milk of thy mothers. Firefangledfeathers 19:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Hemmingway Marvel or DC? I forget... Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any notable increase in risk, since I spend the rest of my typing on WP channeling my inner Virginia Woolf. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Channeling Woolf is a different kind of risk. Firefangledfeathers 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Isn't she one of the characters in the HP Lovecraft books? Tewdar (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake:of course, Lovecraft's characters are based on Virginia Woolf. Tewdar (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Check out Tewdar's awesome new sandbox if you get a chance, talk page stalkers! 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dynnarghow (greetings)
lowena dhiz

joy to+thee

[lɔˈwɛˑna ˈðiːz]

'hello' (to one person)

lowena dhywgh

joy to+you

[lɔˈwɛˑna ˈðɪʊx]

'hello' (to more than one person)

myttin da

morning good

[ˈmɪttɪn ˈdaː]

'good morning'

dydh da

day good

[ˈdɪːð ˈdaː]

'good day'

dohajydh da

afternoon good

[ˌdɔhaˈdʒɪːð ˈdaː]

'good afternoon'

gorthugher da

evening good

[ɡɔrˈθyˑhǝr ˈdaː]

'good evening'

nos da

night good

[ˈnɔːs ˈdaː]

'good night' (when leaving)

duw bo genez

God be-PRES-SBJV.3sg with+thee

[ˈdyʊ ˈbɔː ˈɡɛˑnɛz]

'goodbye' (to one person)

duw bo genowgh

God be-PRES-SBJV.3sg with+you

[ˈdyʊ ˈbɔː ˈɡɛˑnɔʊx]

'goodbye' (to more than one person)

kyj dhe-ves

copulate-IMP.2sg to-open_countryside

[ˈkɪːdʒ ðəˈvɛːs]

'go away' (to one person)

my yw henwyz Tewdar

1SG be-PRES-IND.3SG name-PP Tewdar

[ˈmɪː ɪʊ ˈhɛnwɪz ˈtɛʊdar]

'I am named Tewdar'

fatla genez?

how(-goes-it) with+thee

[ˈfatla ˈɡɛˑnɛz]

'how are you?' (to one person)

fatla genowgh?

how(-goes-it) with+you

[ˈfatla ˈɡɛˑnɔʊx]

'how are you?' (to more than one person)

klav ov (vy)

sick be-PRES-IND.1SG (1SG)

[ˈklaːv ˈɔːv (ˈvɪː)]

'I am sick'

skwith ov (vy)

tired be-PRES-IND.1SG (1SG)

[ˈskwiːθ ˈɔːv (ˈvɪː)]

'I am tired'

lowen ov (vy)

happy be-PRES-IND.1SG (1SG)

[ˈlɔʊɛn ˈɔːv (ˈvɪː)]

'I am happy'

trist ov (vy)

sad be-PRES-IND.1SG (1SG)

[ˈtɾiːst ˈɔːv (ˈvɪː)]

'I am sad'

 Tewdar  (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Tewdar  (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pupils' questions
Dydh da, teacher Tewdar. In what sense does kyj mean 'copulate'? Firefangledfeathers 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lowena dhiz, ow howeth! Da yw genev dha welez omma! (joy to thee, my (male?) friend! I am happy to see thee here!) The Lhuyd Vocabulary attests a number of verbal forms, including cydzhivaz 'to be on heat', from which we reconstruct a verbal noun *kyjya 'to join, unite, fuck, copulate' and a 2nd person singular imperative 'kyj!' 'fuck (you singular)!' Therefore a less polite translation of 'kyj dhe-ves' might be "fuck off!" I'm delighted to answer any more questions you might have in the "Learn Cornish with Tewdar" series. Kemmer with! (take care!) 😁 Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * < from Proto-Celtic *ki-tu 'join, unite' if you're interested... Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was definitely getting some “go fuck yourself in a field” vibes. Firefangledfeathers 01:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have watched and carefully listened to a bunch of videos on Youtube, and wondered if the search for an "authentic" pronunciation is a thing among modern Cornish speakers. Three hallmarks of a heavy English accent in virtually every acquired L2 are the approximant realization [ɹ] of the rhotic, the centralized realization /u:/, and – to a lesser degree, because not uncommon in other lgs – the velarized /l/. All speakers I have heard in these videos do the same thing in Cornish, which leads to all the silly Youtube user comments talking about "English read backwards" etc. Well yes, if heard from a distance without actively trying to parse through the acoustic signal, it could be mistaken for English. So what has come to mind: is there a way to tell whether the most iconic sound of the British Isles and its colonies (= [ɹ]) was actually used in the Late pre-revival Cornish, e.g. based on contemporary descriptions, or substratum influence on 19-century Cornish English? I guess evidence for /u:/ and /l/ would even be harder to get, so I limit this to [ɹ] first. –Austronesier (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Gorthugher da, ow howeth! There is some evidence that [ɾ], and not [ɹ], was the actual realization of traditional Cornish /r/; Firstly, it is actually attested as such in west Penwith dialect. Secondly, sporadic rhotacisation of Late Cornish /z/ suggests that the most likely realization would be a tap, [ɾ], not a retroflex [ɹ], eg thera vy 'I am' (< yth ezov vy), gara 'leave' (< gaza). So Late Cornish probably used a tapped [ɾ], and not the [ɹ] sound used by many revivalists, at least in my view, and the orthography indicates that there was probably an earlier distinction between /r/ and /rr/, which was probably a longer trill.
 * What do you mean by "the centralized realization /u:/"?
 * Some of the YouTube videos sound very "English", but there are some speakers (often trained linguists) who do not... Tewdar (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh that's great, so I will use a tap then when reading the examples out load. As for /uː/, I should have said "fronted". Almost all varieties of English have their /uː/-sound somewhere left of the cardinal sound. U-fronting is historically of course a very Celtic thing, but for secondary u's I could imagine a nice back articulation in traditional Cornish. –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * /u/ is actually a rare phoneme in Middle Cornish (which is the period transcribed in these lessons), as PCelt /ū/ > MCo /i/, and most /ŭ/ merge with /ŏ/ (probably as [ɔ]), except perhaps in MCo unstressed final syllables. The only possible exceptions are words in /Wi-/ > /gu/ eg. MCo. /gur/ [guːɾ]. But, by the late Cornish period, most PCelt /ē/ and /ai/ (> OCo /ui/ > MCo /o̝/, probably [oː]), along with MCo intervocalic /ɔʊ/ have raised to /uː/, which I suspect not to have been particularly fronted or centralised.
 * I suppose I'd better change those [r]s to [ɾ]s, then... 😁 Tewdar (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the [u]s you are talking about are actually badly pronounced /y/s, ie [y]? We get a lot of that, too...so people say something like [tuːs] when they should be saying [tyːz], for example,probably because it's spelt "tus" Tewdar (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If /y/ is more frequent than /u/, I guess that's the one I heard. For me as a native [tʃœɐ̯mən] speaker, /y/ is as easy as Frühstück. –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to avoid diacritics some orthographies use ⟨u⟩ = [y] and ⟨ou⟩ = [u], but then people don't bother to learn the pronunciation rules. Even the teachers... also ⟨eu⟩ or ⟨ue⟩ is pronounced [œ], or perhaps [ø], which you should also find as easy as making Franzbrötchen!

Patterson et al. (2021)
Hi Tewdar, Happy New Year! In case you don't have full access to the early release version of Patterson et al. (2021), just let me know, I have institutional access to Nature (and also Science and Cell etc.). –Austronesier (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Blydhen nowydh da, ow howeth! I have read the paper (very interesting, isn’t it?), but only the "accelerated preview" on their horrible web-based viewer. Are you able to download pdfs and such? Very kind of you to think of me, by the way! 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ´Just send me an email, so I can share the pdf with you via a cloud server. –Austronesier (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, I got the file! Did you ever get to speak to Herr Habermas? Tewdar (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't even made it to his lectures and seminars which were notoriously overcrowded. But my assistant supervisor regularly went there. I was more into the Neue Frankfurter Schule then, with their tongue-in-cheek Critical Theory approach. –Austronesier (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Neue Frankfurter Schule sounds awesome! I wonder if their works were ever translated into English? Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut...Thanks again for the pdf, much better to read now! 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your signature
Just saw your new signature (I assume) on Newimpartial's page. I can't be bothered to read whatever the discussion is about, but thought I'd let you know I think your new signature is really cool :D Hope you're enjoying your weekend. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why thank you very much! Insular style T and d, and Cornish colour scheme! 😁😎👍  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s broken on mobile btw lol Mvbaron (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which device? Works fine on my mobile. Contact your hardware manufacturer and get them to support those lovely new insular characters...  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Same for my device (Samsung phone, Brave browser) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mvbaron: so, you cant see any of these, then?  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, I can’t… hmm, I’m on Firefox on iPhone. Mvbaron (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

yet another variation Mvbaron (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you see the unicode characters on the page I linked above?  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, you should be seeing sans serif characters, not serif. Looks like you are experiencing technical difficulties...  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And another user called me "Ꞇewꝺar" (that's 'Tewdar' with a funny T and d earlier, so...  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Might start using the IPA spelling of your name, Tewdar /s A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That'd be [tɛˑʊdǝɾ] probably.  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh! That's actually quite nice to know, I'd been mis-pronouncing it in my head as [teudaɾ] due to my native Spanish phonology. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Half-length diphthong nucleus optional. Feel free to replace the flapped r with a retroflex [ɹ] too.  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use this if your IPA is not native-level...  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Firefox / iphone is overriding fonts (or not supporting a font with those characters)?  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ᚉᚐᚅᚔᚑᚒᚏᚓᚐᚇᚈᚆᚔᚄᚂᚑᚂ 😂  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the same thing as Mvbaron when using iOS Firefox. iOS Wikipedia app is showing me question mark boxes for the T and D. Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Another reason why I don't use Apple, then. Ah well, you'll just have to put up with it I'm afraid. Can you read the ogham, just above your comment? Can you install better fonts, perhaps?  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to put up with it. I mostly edit on desktop, and I'm pretty sure I could spot your comments even if unsigned! Yes, the ogham renders fine. Firefangledfeathers 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You always will be □ew□ar to me <3 (pronounced box-ew-box-ar) --Mvbaron (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * IDK why but -ew-ar reads like e-war which feels like a reference to edit-warring. Yikes! Bets for how many weeks until an editor makes an accusation using the name as proof? /s A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Due to the likely problems with Apple users causing trouble as usual I've changed it to standard characters. 😡  Tewdar   (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The cool characters will remain forever in our hearts <3 A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ANE → EHG
In Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, we say in the lede that "EHGs have about 9% Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)" [sic!] per on Wang et al. (2019), whereas in Ancient_North_Eurasian, we have "Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly (75%) from ANE" per Lazaridis et al. (2016). To add to the confusion, we could also add Sikora et al. (2019) who model EHG ancestry with two admixture events, but then I thought, probably there might be a secondary source that summarizes these things and also comments on the quite different figures. Are you aware of any secondary source that addresses the question? And no, not Anthony, but ideally a geneticists. I have actually a hard to find any post-Sikora study that discusses ANE (or ANS) gene flow into EHG. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Gorthugher da! "Between 9 and 75%" is probably a pretty good estimate of the amount of ANE in EHGs, I expect! I'll take a look and see what I can find - no Anthony, I promise. Might have to wait until tomorrow, when I can do a full text search instead of using my shitty mobile phone. I took your advice about the Cornish tags, btw. I doubt anybody gives a Stargazy pie, though...   Tewdar   (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...or some editors actually are interested, have a look at the talk page, and run away because... (←insert [what I hope [you know [I want to but cannot say]]]).
 * About EHG: if there aren't more recent sources (hopefully there are), we should probably just mention the different models in both pages. –Austronesier (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know what you want to say, alright...yeah, just make a generic paragraph like, "various models suggest that ANE ancestry in EHGs ranges from 1–99%" or whatever, stick a couple of citations on it, then copy 'n paste wherever necessary. 😎 I will try and find that unicorn secondary archaeogenetics source for you tomorrow, though!  Tewdar  (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are some secondary review articles, e.g. like these, so my quest is not that unicornish as it may seem... But by Murphy's law, the ones that I have found don't have anything about the stuff I'm looking for. –Austronesier (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unicorns, I was able to download them. I'll try and find something better this afternoon; if not, we should just go with plan B I think...  Tewdar  (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My searches have turned up nothing fruitful. Don't forget Haak 2015 (supplement) which says: All three of these 2-way mixture models arrive at a similar inference of 38-40% ANE and 60-62% WHG ancestry in Karelia-HG ["the best sample from the EHG"], which is higher than the ~20% ANE ancestry inferred for Motala12 in a previous study, consistent with the fact that EHG are the population sharing more alleles with “Ancient North Eurasians” than any other. (Sikora 2019 which you cited above gives us 81.2% ANE, 18.8% CHG... sigh) I suppose we could say something like "EHG is a cline (🙄), usually modelled as an admixture of ANE and WHG (or a related lineage), in proportions that range from x% to y% depending on the model used" with some citations until something better turns up. If that smells funny to you, we could just summarize the most popular models perhaps.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't stop at Figure S6.6 in Sikora et al. (2019), the final tree is in Figure S6.7 with two consecutive gene flow events (CHG first contributes 22%, WHG subsequently 24%; is it OR to summarize this as "59% ANE ancestry"?). Your text looks good, but I think we can just say "cluster" instead of over-cautious "cline", and of course we have to adjust the wording a bit to accommodate Sikora et al. What about this:
 * EHG is a cluster, usually modelled as an admixture of ANE and WHG (or a related lineage), or in one model of ANE, CHG and WHG, with a contribution of ANE ancestry that ranges from x% to y% depending on the model used.
 * –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I only used 'cline' there so that I could get my crappy joke in, really. I was hoping that this preprint was going to give us a nice summary of the various archaeogenetics lineages, but no such luck. Re Sikora: sorry, missed that bit (I'm trying to cook Thai green curry at the same time), but yes, I think that might be OR. They do say "We also successfully modelled EHG as a three-way mixture of Mal’ta (44.5 ± 11%), CHG (21.1 ± 4%) and WHG (34.4 ± 11%) (p = 0.28) using the qpAdm framework, consistent with the admixture graph results." though...  Tewdar  (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RSN discussion re: genetics info
Howdy Tewdar, I'm inviting you to coke check out my recent RSN discussion on reliable sources for genetics info. There is some disagreement about what solutions are best to tackle this problem. Some people are opposed to bringing something like WP:SCIRS to guideline status, while others can't agree on which policy or guideline to amend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources

I hope you'll be able to leave your thoughts there without losing too much time out of your day. Have a great one. Hunan201p (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

- thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. 😁👍  Tewdar  (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Tewdar, please be aware that this user was banned several times for pushing racist and racial POV, please be mindful of his intentions as he is obviously trying to continue to spread his racial and racist agenda on genetic topics. He is also known to coordinate his racist activities on reddit (see on his talk page) and targeting and monitoring asian-focused subreddits. Best regards :) 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:A8CC:8149:A53F:5A9C (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This information may be relevant for you:. Not sure why it was removed there, but I will write an ANI as well. Take care, the socks and radicals are on both sides of the spectrum, this should be clear after checking him carefully.103.153.254.189 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Re "singular they"
Tewdar, you'd "prefer to analyse 'plural they' and 'singular they' as two distinct pronouns that can be either marked or unmarked for plurality, actually." I'd prefer to analyze 'plural they' and 'singular they' as two distinct lexical items (or terms) whose usage corresponds to singularity (i.e., a singular sense or meaning) and plurality (i.e., a plural sense or meaning) re the they lexeme. Elsewhere it's fine to say "Singular they is a term for..." Here, however, the MOS:REFERS posse might reflexively deep-six that approach here. Nonetheless, the WP:MOS allows that approach in limited circumstances. E.g., see Singular they - Problematic lede: a quick take. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Hello, please can we put the Cornish exonyms page back? Or at least, paste the article into my sandbox so that I can recreate it? Apparently it was created by some sockpuppet and then speedily deleted, but the article didn't have anything wrong with it, at least, the last time I saw it anyway...

--  Tewdar  19:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you have asked the deleting admin, . Wait for their response.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If the article was about Black Women Radicals or transgender issues there would probably be a mass social media campaign, sixteen admins trying to get the article reinstated, ArbCom involvement, and a reprimand for the deleting admin. Alas, the English Wikipedia may not be the place for an article of such detail about a language with only 500 or so living speakers. I'd escalate this to one of the drama boards if I thought anybody would give a tuppeny fuck. 😡  Tewdar   09:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the work it entails to recreate the content: did the article contain sources that you cannot remember anymore, so undeleting the page would help us in expanding the content based on these "lost" sources? I can use this as an argument in an undeletion request, plus the fact that you intended to expand the page. I know that WP:G5 can only be barred if the page has been actually edited by other contributors, but your good-faith endorsement in Talk:Cornish language might also count. –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Myttin da! Now that you mention it, I can only remember the Gerlyver Meur dictionary, (which was the one I used to make several contributions to the article, so it wasn't like just the sock editor wrote the article entirely on their own). I have several sources which can be used to expand the content, once I've finished the WSH rewrite... how can I request undeletion? 🤔Thanks for classing up my talk page as usual! 😁  Tewdar   10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am not really friend of articles that tend to become comprehensive vocabulary lists, for any language or proto-language. That's what Wiktionary is for. A "toponyms" article should go into the structural history of toponyms, illustrating the ways of transmission, the major source languages in cases of indirect transmissions etc. But Cornish shouldn't be treated exceptionally because of its speaker number (as if it were some stupid conlang). That's a kick in the groin for its speaker community and all people in the world identifying with the UNESCO commitment to language preservation and revitalization. Here's the page you're looking for WP:REFUND. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the "vocabulary list" problem. I don't know if you saw the Cornish exonyms article, but it wasn't that big, and only really had major towns/cities/bodies of water. Plus, there's a whole bunch of these articles here for other languages... maybe I'll try my luck over at WP:REFUND then. Oddschecker.com are now offering 3-5 on Tewdar getting blocked by the end of the week... 😂  Tewdar   11:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done  Tewdar , I was wanting to request undeletion myself. The sockpuppet had mentioned at least one other source (Nicholas Williams' dictionary), and I have access to another unpublished source myself. Please let me know if and when it gets undeleted. Brwynog (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it's undeleted now! 😁 It was me who mentioned Nicholas Williams' dictionary, BTW... which unpublished source is this? 🤔  Tewdar   11:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bryntin, gwrys yn ta  Tewdar  . Yma rol gwrys gans Rod Lyon dhymm a henwyn trevow yn Pow Sows gans an hanow 'chester' po hanow hevelep Romanek. Yma hwans dhymm keworra moy a henwyn y'n termyn a dheu.  Brwynog (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Martesen, y hyllyn keworra an henwyn trevow na y'n erthygel avel "pennfenten omdhyllys"? Eus titel dhe'n rol? Yw "Roll a 105 hanow-tyller..."? Yma lies hanow-tyller heb pennfenten y'n erthygel seulabrys...😁  Tewdar   13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yma 51 a henwyn y'n rol, mes martesen ny vydh res komprehendya pubonan anedha.Titel an rol yw "English names ‘-caster’, ‘-chester’ etc."Brwynog (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yn kynsa, gwell via genev keworra hanow-tylleryow dhyworth an tekstow hengovek dhe'n erthygel...   Tewdar   16:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mes ke yn rag ha keworra an henwyn dhyworth dha rol dhe'n erthygel...  Tewdar   16:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits at Trans woman
Hey, I'm reading through your edit summaries for the edits at Trans woman. Do you happen to have a link to the source text to hand? As while I can read the citation, I cannot find anywhere to actually acquire it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm afraid I don't have any (legal) links for you. But I've heard folks say that putting the letter 'z' before the word 'library' often gives useful results... 😁👍

The entry I'm talking about is for transgender, not trans woman, hence not the best source.  Tewdar  18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I know how to find specific research papers, chapter extracts, and the like from a certain hub based website and elsewhere, I meant specifically the source. There's no ISBN or DOI in the citation, so I'm having a hard time tracking down the source encyclopaedia as a whole, much less look for certain chapter extracts from it. Though it seems I did accidentally go down a bit of a rabbit hole thanks to the similarly named International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. ISBN is 978-0-02-866117-9 (all volumes, I think...) 😀  Tewdar   18:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Google gives you the pdf probably...  Tewdar   18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, found a PDF from the ISBN, and extracted the specific section from that. Reading now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I've read through the section that Levitt wrote. I feel as though both the original version is SYNTHy. Where the previous editor has erred is that they took the generalised "the sex of those who transition" bit which Levitt applied to both trans women and trans men, and applied it only to trans women. However I also understand why they did this. The use of "transwomen" versus "trans woman" (or "transman" versus "trans man") is a hot button topic at the moment within trans discourse. While I cannot attest to how the words were used circa 2008 when the source was published, in 2022 the use of "transwomen" is almost exclusively done so by transphobes, whereas "trans woman" is the preferred term for trans individuals. Given the age of the source, and that there isn't a newer edition of it, perhaps we could omit Levitt's definition entirely as it doesn't represent the modern usage of the term?Also feel free to copy this reply, and any subsequent ones you make to the talk page if you'd prefer to discuss this there instead of here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Trash the whole synthin' lot. It's mainly just repeating what's already said somewhere else in the unstructured mess that is the terminology section, and it's old, and uses outdated and, as you point out, possibly offensive terminology like 'transwomen'. That entire section is total random rubbish.  Tewdar   18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The entire terminology section is dreadful. It's just loads of bits all stuck together!  Tewdar   18:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that section as a whole now, and yeah. It reads very disjointed, as just a collection of various trans terminological factoids strung together without care for how the section as a whole reads. Who was the student editor for this section? Just so we can see what the state of it was before their edits, to see if that's any better. Or whether we need to redraft that section entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should move this to the talk page of the article. As this goes beyond a single poorly used source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead...  Tewdar   19:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant comments copied. Let's continue the discussion over there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Racheljsmall is the editor responsible for the Heidi M Levitt additions, according to the magnificent WikiBlame tool. Not sure about the rest. I mean, come on, none of the definitions in that section even match that given in the lede!   Tewdar   19:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We're through the looking glass here people.
I knew it was you on the ! Even when it was that other guy I knew it was you! Now I just need to connect you to J.R, then it will all make sense... Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean... I don't know why I'm being called a (racist, anti-trans) conspiracy theorist here. I'm quite upset by this tbh. I'm not exactly proud of my Cornish Exonyms comments, but I don't think you could call them in any way racist or transphobic - just moaning about Wiki bureaucracy really... I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories I've heard - JFK, global warming, CM conspiracy, moon landing... ☹️  Tewdar   15:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know buddy. If it helps, I had someone in an edit summary a few days ago call me a TERF, which given my edit history is certainly an interesting take. Some folks just throw all sorts of insults out in the hopes that one sticks. That the label isn't truthful doesn't really matter to them, they just want you to feel bad. It's difficult, cause dealing with negative comments always is, but try to just go and chill for the rest of the day, then come back with a clearer head tomorrow. Play a video game, read a book, binge watch a TV series or film, whatever sends you to your happy place. For me, I find humour helps me process, or I throw myself into a video game to just forget about everything. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism
I observe that you have recently been well-behaved on that page (perhaps against your own better judgement). But Nerfdart/the IP is actively reminding me why, through no fault of your own, you can't have what you want. Newimpartial (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - hey, thanks! (Finally, some recognition) 😁 Yes, it is against my own better judgement (have you read the shit I've put up with lately?!) . What I "want" is for that article to reflect reality. So in the current RfC, I think that mentioning that Cultural Marxism, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Frankfurt School conspiracy, are all alternative names for the same thing, is a pretty small ask and in line with the sources already used. Unfortunately, this small suggestion, like almost all others over there, apparently raises suspicion that either this would help legitimate the conspiracy theory (!), or that I am a big fan of a conspiracy theory that I barely knew anything about until the start of this year (!!!), or both (!!!!!). Finally, check out the new FAQ. Incredibly, RationalWiki does a better job on this topic than we do! 😂🤣😂  Tewdar   08:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not leave the first sentence as I last left it, but rework the lede so the second sentence reads "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory after the figures it primarily targets, ..." ? Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start, that's probably not the best way of implementing ALTNAME (see Common Brittonic or Proto-Human language for what I'd consider a good way of doing it, or my suggestion in that ******* RfC. Also, your suggestion leaves out the fact that the conspiracy theory itself is (most often) referred to as simply 'Cultural Marxism' (which we need to distinguish from 'Cultural Marxism' as the purported fictitious far-right antisemitic etc. so-called object of the conspiracy). But beyond that, I don't think that continuing to contribute to an article where other editors feel that including the title of the article in the lede (FFFFFFFS!) suggests that the conspiracy is real (which sounds a bit Orwellian and makes me feel like a protagonist in a Kafka novel or something) would be very productive.
 * Thanks for commenting here. I genuinely enjoyed collaborating with you on the 'Development of the conspiracy theory' section and the restructuring. Perhaps one day we can merge the 'Development' and 'Origins' sections.  Tewdar   12:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tewdar, you are asking that the title of the article be referred to in the lede, but when I come up with a way to do that (one that would presumably pre-empt objections from other editors who oppose the text you've previously proposed), you insist that it should be done according to a dogmatic idiosyncratic deeply felt reading of ALTNAME. Sigh. I propose (somewhat) elegant prose, reflecting two ways in which "Cultural Marxism" is used (by using it in the first sentence as the name for the CT and in the second sentence as the name for the object of the conspiracy theory), and you insist that the material needs to be presented with more vigorous hand motions. Sigh again.
 * The reasons you can't have what you want include your failure to recognize the underlying concern of those !voting against you - essentially, the way editors like Nerfdart seize upon the changes you propose to introduce FUD as a way to push towards what they want - and also your tone deafness to the ways in which, in making limited proposals for change based on your reading of the topic, you sound as though you were willingly pushing open the wedge for conspiracy theorists like Nerfdart. Per WP:AGF, I think it much more likely that you are in effect a Useful idiot, but you seem unable to make your arguments appear differently - your attempts to employ sarcasm and self-caricature to do this have largely come up empty, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Where did I insist? Your change would be better than the current version. Go right ahead and implement it. All I said was it wasn't the best way of doing it, imo.
 * I am well aware that my proposals to describe reality and reliable sources accurately are being seen as part of a plot, inadvertently or otherwise, to undermine the fragile status quo and allow "Cultural Marxism conspiracy is reel" to come in through the back door. I'm just not particularly interested in this. Focusing on such concerns is no way to build an article.
 * Arguing with people who believe that adding the words "conspiracy theory" to a conspiracy theory suggests that it isn't a conspiracy theory is pointless, with or without sarcasm and caricature.  Tewdar   13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, Tewdar, can you grasp that "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", as a phrase, suggests to some readers a "conspiracy theory about (actually existing) Cultural Marxism", in contrast to "Cultural Marxism refers to a conspiracy theory", which does not? As far as "describing reality and reliable sources accurately", I am deeply committed to that, but my reading of both reality and reliable sources simply does not confirm your belief that there was a significant alternate meaning of "cultural Marxism" as an intellectual tradition prior to the emergence of the conspiracy theory. I recognize that you believe this thing, but I do not accept your reading of the sources that you interpret as support for your belief. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood what people are saying. It's just a bit difficult to take such arguments seriously when the article is called 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'. Perhaps if they were also seeking to rename the article 'Cultural Marxism' it might make sense, but no, this also, per Doublethink, would be a secret attempt to promote the conspiracy, it seems. Preposterous.
 * Luckily, we don't have to rely upon your (or my) analysis of the relative frequency of the uses of the term 'cultural Marxism' - we have scholarly articles and books, encyclopedia entries, and the recently added OED entry, which doesn't even bother to mark the second sense, "The theory that the oppression of the working class is effected through social and cultural means", as rare. Huh. Perhaps the OED has been infiltrated by useful idiots or something.
 * But anyway, hopefully I won't be tempted to make any more contributions to either the article or its talk page. If there is an agenda over there, I'm not sure that I understand what it is.  Tewdar   14:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the edit histories of Nerfdart and their IP, I think the agenda is pretty evident. It consists of (1) creating a disambiguation page, to communicate that "Cultural Marxism" can refer to a real thing or a conspiracy theory; (2) rewording the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" article, so it says essentially that the conspiracy theory is an "exaggerated" version of actually existing academic Marxism ("Cultural Marxism"); and (3) introducing somewhere some critiques of academic Marxism that I in particular have supposedly been "supressing". (BTW, Nerfdart's misinterpretation of the first page of the CT talk archive, where I referred to my sophomore Marcuse paper, as though I had "published" it, strikes me as particularly ironic since I never managed to "publish" anything in this field even when I actually tried.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not terribly bothered about whether the articles have a disambiguation page or not. Perhaps it might be nice to have this, but I don't really care. As long as somewhere it is explained that cultural Marxism might refer to something else. The hatnote achieves the absolute bare minimum, imo, since the OED lists two senses. I don't think any reliable sources will ever be presented to support the view that the various versions of the conspiracy theory can be generally summarized as an exaggerated account of the activities of the Frankfurt School, so there goes number 2 (I quite like "perverse tribute", actually). As for 3, I'm sure we could include a bit of postmodernist critique on the Marxist cultural analysis article, no?
 * My basic problem with the article was and is that it is basically shit. It didn't even describe the various versions of the conspiracy theory until we put it in a couple of months ago!  Tewdar   14:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the 'Aspects of the conspiracy theory' section is a dog's breakfast.  Tewdar   15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply posted just now at Closure Requests
Hey. doesn't seem appropriate for that noticeboard. I'd suggest self-reverting it. The closure request is fine, and one of us will get to it eventually :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Which part didn't you like? I thought I should at least mention the list of sources (which are falsely described in the discusion as 'Phd theses and other low-quality' or something like that), just in case whoever closes it fails to notice the link. You can revert it if you really think it's inappropriate (you may well be right - that discussion made me incandescent with rage 😠). Most of the requests at least seem to describe why there was a request in the first place, though...  Tewdar   16:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - there. Fixed it. Good enough?  Tewdar   16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, how is "Take it out back and shoot it" fine? 😂  Tewdar   16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks better now with just the original request. Though I'd probably have worded it a bit more neutrally; something like "RfC quiet now for X days. Ready for close.", I don't think you need to adjust that. Having reviewed that discussion briefly, and I might take a stab at a closure on it later, it doesn't look that complicated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's very simple. My suggestion was the best, and everybody else voted for the wrong option. 😂 By all means, stick a fork in it.  Tewdar   20:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON at Talk:Great Replacement
The move request discussion is being dominated by only a few voices, one of which is yours. At 14 comments (at my count) in that one discussion, it's beginning to look a lot like WP:BLUDGEON. At this point, your opinion on the matter should be abundantly clear, and additional commentary and responses to people with contrary opinions has vastly diminishing returns. Please slow down a bit, and let other people comment. Thanks. -- Jayron 32 16:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And 17 each for Valjean and Generalrelative. Have you left similar messages on their talkpages? I certainly hope so. Anyway, duly noted. Unless someone pings me, I will not comment again. Fair enough? 🤔  Tewdar   16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I note that you have indeed left a message on Valjean's talk page. Kudos to you. 👍  Tewdar   16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And it's 'only' 😁 twelve comments from me by my count, including one that merely says, "don't ping me"...but still, I take your point.  Tewdar   16:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you Tewdar for your kind words on my talk page. This is much appreciated. I would like to thank you to for your contributions to Wikipedia and the articles you have created. Graearms (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and you're very welcome. I might contribute to Substance abuse in Ancient Rome and Mental illness in ancient Rome someday, I have a few sources that haven't been used yet.
 * Your new Draft:Surgery in Ancient Rome article looks very interesting too! 👍  Tewdar   08:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tewdar, I would appreciate any and all of your contributions to my articles. Graearms (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Basques and Britons
I don't know if you are interested, but see which IMHO is a bad edit, and the existing text "Although Basque-like Neolithic farmers did populate Britain (and all of Northern Europe) during the Neolithic period" is wrong, isn't it? Then there's this. The Sykes edit was reverted but the article and Oppenheimer's still need work. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug! The edits to the Sykes/Oppenheimer articles definitely look like they are trying to minimise the criticism, especially the 90% > 40% change, which if I remember correctly even appears in the abstract of the Olalde et al paper which is cited, and the deletion of the paragraph criticizing Oppenheimer as "nothing to do with his findings" 😂. I don't know if I'd call British Neolithic farmers "Basque-like"... I believe Brace et al. has a couple of EEFs (from Scotland?) who are fairly close to modern Basques on the PCA. But EEFs are generally closer to modern Sardinians than Basques, who are shifted towards WHGs and "steppe" (related) populations. Anyway, despite a plausible Neolithic Atlantic coast mating network scenario, we'd definitely need a source for this claim.
 * I didn't really look at the Sykes and Oppenheimer articles until today. I agree that they need a "bit" of work! 😁  Tewdar   15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I put the stuff removed from the Oppenheimer article back, but I changed the preprint source, and added some other stuff.  Tewdar   18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great,thanks. Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about EEF, have you already seen this? –Austronesier (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Ooh! No, I haven't, thanks! I'll read that when I finally finish this one... 😁👍  Tewdar   21:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Cope and seethe you are replaced by migrants in your homeland
You will never be a real Indo-European. You have no horse, you have no chariot, you have no yurt. You are a mutt living a farmer lifestyle twisted by coping and larping into a crude mockery of steppe’s perfection.

All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your 50% EEF appearance behind closed doors.

Nomads and agriculturalists alike are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed them to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even steppe LARPers who “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a nomad and an agriculturalist alike. Your lifestyle and skin, eye, and hair color are a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to convince some drunk guy that you are indeed an Indo-European steppe nomad, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, infected delusional fantasies that you live through as a way to escape reality. You will never be an Indo-European. You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you alone, without a horse, next to a farm with a headstone marked with letters that Indo-Europeans had no idea of, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know someone who was not a nomad is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakably not Indo-European.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back. 141.255.87.224 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a donkey. Does that count as a horse?  Tewdar   16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't do it! Don't jump...ehm....no...err... what again did that wacko say? Anyway, do you need a link a to a helpline, or maybe just a pint🍺😁 ? –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sat next to a river in the sunshine, so I couldn't be happier actually...despite my large proportion of EEF ancestry, lack of horse, and lack of pint. 😂👍  Tewdar   17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I can smell a horse right now, funnily enough...🐴🤔  Tewdar   17:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn, Tewdar, nobody takes the time to write me such lengthy, detailed hate mail. All I ever get is like a one or two-sentence eff-off. #jealous Levivich 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was so confused by coping and larping in the same sentence. A coper is an archaic term for a horse dealer. I thought maybe a larper was also some sort of archaic term and was intrigued. But no. Valereee (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the motivation behind this message is supposed to be. Ironically, the IP is based in Greece, where steppe ancestry is usually quite low...  Tewdar   07:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Try out new signature 😁👍 Tewdar   12:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

hmm... 😁👍  Tewdar  12:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * "What a wonderful surprise! My dear friend, I am at a loss for words, but let me try to express the joy I feel..." (you read Asterix at all? 😁) Seriously though, this really was a pleasant surprise, when I saw the red dot I thought I was in for a bollicking or something...I'm actually rather fond of barnstars, but don't tell anyone.


 * Hope you're well, and check out my Cornish Bronze Age draft if you get a chance and tell me what you think. I'm going to try and make some nice maps if I get a chance! 😁👍  Tewdar   19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm great, thanks. Just pretty busy off-Wiki. In fact, I was across the Channel a few weeks ago, but it didn't take me as far west as Tristan's peninsula. You read Asterix at all? Are you kiddin?! I grew up learning to read by devouring Asterix comics. (Nah, it's a lie, actually it was Disney comics 😁)
 * I just had a cursory glance, but the draft looks awsome! I think it has reached a stage you can "advertise" it to people like Joe Roe and Doug Weller for comments. And what coincidence, based on the last comment in this thread I would have expected to find something about the Minoans in your draft. (Nah, this is another lie: oh those demic ingots!😁) –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and related to your edits that led me to bestow the Barney on you: doesn't this fucking look like Coon 2.0? –Austronesier (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you had a lovely time. Personally I don't dare to cross the Tamar these days in case I die in Devon. I learned a lot of my Latin from Asterix, to the point where I can decline my hiccups. Minoans and tin ingots are definitely on my to-do list, hopefully I can fit a few Phoenicians in too. That Origins section is just.. breathtaking. I'll try and add a few photographs of racial ancestry types from Wikicommons to the table if I get a chance. 😁👍  Tewdar   18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Should I include it among the lovely experiences in life to have Koenraad Elst in the audience of my talk?😁 But apart from that it was a really cool event. Talking about articles of yours: have you already checked out Vallini et al. (2022) for expanding Yana_Rhinoceros_Horn_Site? There is a nice and detailed discussion about the possible topologies for ANE and ANS ancestries in 3.6. of the supplement. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ...apart from that... he wasn't heckling you and throwing rotten vegetables again, was he?! Just shout, "this ain't the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Koenraad!", that usually shuts him up for a while. Thank you for the link, well spotted! I shall expand the archaeogenetics section asap. 👍👍  Tewdar   19:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I see Pavel Iosad was there. I wish he'd write more stuff on Cornish..  Tewdar   20:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Gwithian Lunula.jpg
This image which you uploaded has a non-commercial licence so using it on wikipedia commons is I think against the copyright rules.

"The image will be released to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license."

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/25106001 Ario1234 (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * u|Ario1234 - I don't understand. How exactly does this use violate the terms of the licence?  Tewdar   15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Fix ping for   Tewdar   15:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Aagh bollocks you're right. Okay, that one, the penannular bracelet, and the fucking pottery need to be deleted then. Fuck it. 😡  Tewdar   15:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you might be able to use it as a non-free fair use image. Ario1234 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - oh, thanks, I didn't know I could do that. I uploaded another photo of it instead now, but it wasn't as good as the British Museum’s picture.  Tewdar   21:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You're too kind
Thanks for the compliment at the UK's talkpage. But, I no longer want to be a part of the discussion-in-progress, there. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Maybe I'll do it, but I don't really have your diplomatic skills. 😂  Tewdar   17:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I left a brief further comment there. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Cornish grammar
HI, in this edit you introduced a reference to "WIlliams 2007", but no such work is listed. This causes the article to appear in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and also means that nobody can look up the reference. It would be great if you could fix this. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing that out, it was actually Williams 1997, not 2007. I changed the examples to the actual examples he uses too. Oll an gwella! 😁👍  Tewdar   08:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it so quickly, DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yamnaya, again
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is Chintalapati et al. (2022) a source for the two waves of West Asian admixture into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, as claimed by the IP? I hesitate to remove the source (which adds nothing new to the article) without consulting you first. I expect you to be more familiar with the paper than I am. 😁 Austronesier (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Good morning! 😁 As far as I'm aware, everything in that passage is already supported by the recent Lazaridis et al "Southern Arc" paper, which dates the steppe EHG admixture events with CHG-related and Levantine-related groups. I'm not sure why the IP talks about "dating the second admixture event" because our article doesn't seem to give a date for this, except "sometime later"? The Chintalapati et al paper gives a different, later date for the first (EHG-CHG) admixture event, and the supplementary tables only give dates for "EHG_pooled/Iran_N_pooled" (Early Steppe pastoralists) and "Steppe/Neolithic_Europe_pooled" (MLBA Steppe pastoralists). I think the Chintalapati et al paper can be removed as it is not needed. It could probably be separately summarized, but I probably won't have much time today...  Tewdar   07:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I have even less time for WP 😁! Thanks for your input, I will see what to do with the Chintalapati et al. source. In a way it serves as another secondary source for the "standard model" about steppe ancestry formation, so we might keep it for that purpose. Remember, I hate articles that one-by-one summarize individual papers. We're here to summarize established knowledge... –Austronesier (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's hope somebody connects the dots of the recent Chintalapati, Lazaridis, and Allentoft (when published) papers for us so that we don't have to do the review ourselves, then. 😱 It's a pity you don't have much Wikitime these days... I'm sure quite a lot of stuff has slipped through the cracks huge chasm these last couple of weeks, and I'm still polishing up that (c. 13,000 word at this point?) Bronze Age article. Still, autumn's nearly here.  Tewdar   14:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just autumn by calendar. Over here, it's back to late summer (or at least summerish vibes during daytime). Talking about secondary sources, do you have a copy of this one? –Austronesier (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone walks around in shorts and sandals pretty much all year round in my part of the world... yes, I have the Feldman et al. review. We would certainly do better basing our archaeogenetics articles on such sources, even if we'd be a year or so out of date. They'd be a lot more interesting to read too, instead of 'a 20xx study by Wafflebeard et al. found 9x R1b1a1ba1a1b1b1b1a, 4x R1a1a1a1b1a1a1b...carrying blah blah blah...' (before you point it out, yes, I know my Bronze Age article does exactly this, but hey, there's only two of them, and one of em's probably my great great great great [...] great great granfer 😁)  Tewdar   19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your email still active? I've sent you a message two days ago begging for a copy of Feldman et al... 🥺 –Austronesier (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I disabled email. If this link doesn't work for you, perhaps I'll enable it again. Can we send pdfs through the Wikipedia email system, or do we need to come up with another solution?  Tewdar   22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for grading my article! 😁 Did the link work, or shall I put the pdf on Google drive or something?  Tewdar   19:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it worked. Actually, I was just too dumb to search via WP Library (which gives access to EBSCOhost). It's good to see your draft having gone "live". Hopefully it won't attract the kind of crowd that has tried to mess with the Yana RHS article 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Once a lengthy article goes into mainspace, you will eventually meet people like these. Their teflon is amazing, isn't it, especially when you see people getting blocked left and right for lesser disruption. –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fucking gerund-grinders! Don't they have nothing better to do?! Wait, don't they have anything better to do?! No, I mean... have they nothing better to do...?! Help me out here! 😂  Tewdar   21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Arthurian Stuff
How are you on Arthurian stuff and dragons? Welsh Dragon and Welsh Gold Dragon are currently making me quite cross! Think there may be a WP:CIR issue. Just thought your Cornish perspective might also knock some sense into someone who keeps inserting edits that say Celtic Britons are Welsh. This is where it all started:. I put stuff on both talk pages. Understandable if you don't want to get involved though. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Touching grass is good.
Two bludgeons don't make a good discussion. Leave it be. Everyone has made the points they wanted to make, and going back and forth doesn't improve anyone's position. It's not good to feed a sealion. Theheezy (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right. Besides, Crossroads and Sideswipe will probably be along to do the weekday shifts... 😁  Tewdar   07:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These days I'm trying to save the bludgeon for when it's truly needed 😉 Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends...
.... Seriously it's awful. If you have a larger phone, or a decent tablet, I can full heartedly recommend the NeverUseMobileVersion script for editing in a mobile web browser. It forces redirects in Chrome and Firefox mobile to use the desktop version of the site instead of the mobile version. Much better! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wrote almost this entire article with my phone! Desktop is a bit small on a phone, which is actually easier for me, since I edit on the beach, in the woods, in the marsh, on the moor...😁  Tewdar   22:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! I missed that getting to mainspace. Congrats! I'm 100% desktop view when I edit on mobile. Thanks for the script tip Sideswipe9th. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Desktop view is very clunky for me on mobile with big articles, so I rarely use it. The Bronze Age article turned out not bad - I had to send it to mainspace early because it was too addictive writing it...😁  Tewdar   08:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your sig
Hi, I have trouble reading your sig, especially the first character of your username, because of the colors. You might consider brightening it up a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You want me to change the official colours of my homeland because it's difficult to see? Oooooo.....oooooo....kaaaaay...  Tewdar   15:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're funny.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, I found the request just a teensie-weensie bit offensive...  Tewdar   15:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I used to use these characters, but then the iphone users can't see those special characters at all. I think I'll go back to those actually, looks nicer, at least on my phone. 😁👍  Ꞇewꝺar   15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * How about this? Brightened up enough foree?  Ꞇewꝺar   15:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh alright, I'll get rid of the insular characters too ☹️  Tewdar   15:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm getting lost (what was the question?), but I like the icons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Which icons do you like? The insular characters?  Tewdar   16:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never even heard of insular characters until now. No, I should have said emoticons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We can all thank Michael Everson for his great work putting these characters into Unicode for us. I had to change that colour again, tidn't proper me 'ansome...what do you think of it now?   Tewdar   16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good...not as good as mine...but good.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, submit a feature request to disable signature customization if you've got any further suggestions! 😂  Tewdar   17:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There's an easier solution: add a class to your sig, and those who want to change the colors, can do so on their own, without affecting how your sig appears to you or others. Your sig appears to be:

You could change the &lt;span> to add a class, like this:

and then Bbb23 or any other user could add a line to their common.css like this:

and your sig would look like this to them:
 *  Tewdar  hh:mm, dd Month YYYY (UTC)

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ROGD suggestion
Wrt your suggestion at Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy about "wouldn't it have failed to catch stuff like "scientifically unsound", the answer is, "yes, but it probably doesn't matter", for two reasons: first and foremost, even without that, the data was pretty conclusive (even in it's incomplete state) and the Rfc has been closed already. Secondly, because of the reason stated here. I appreciate your suggestions, both of which were an improvement to the match pattern. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Language and History in Early Britain
Hello, Tewdar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Language and History in Early Britain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just made an edit, so it's moot now for another six months. –Austronesier (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks! It's quite an important work in Brittonic linguistics, I'm surprised there aren't more sources from, like, this century...  Tewdar   22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe
Do you believe that this article can be saved without TNT-ing it? 😁 Austronesier (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not optimistic...  Tewdar   20:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's against TNT-policy, though: Blow up content, not the contributor! –Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My lawyer has advised me to clarify that the lemmings in that video are intended as a metaphor for paragraphs or sections in the article, and do not represent the many fine editors who have contributed content. But I never listen to my lawyer anymore (look what happened last time, Mr Stripey-Braces! 😠😠😠)  Tewdar   20:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, but that's what I actually did last night. @Rimisibaqwa has contributed 6,7% of the current content, but counting all WCF socks in the last years, I'm sure the figure will be higher.
 * Btw, we still have to add the new data about Upper Paleolithic genomes to Genetic history of the British Isles. –Austronesier (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just let them add their disinformation (albeit with 'nicely formatted' references 😐) to the articles. We wouldn't want to get ourselves hacked or kidnapped or anything... 😂  Tewdar   20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is so wacky, innit? I have seen this before (it used to be linked on the LTA page). Such a load of bullshit about some bloke who actually (like all of us) just wants to share knowledge, although in a way too obstinate manner. –Austronesier (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content by IP without consensus
Hi, it is regarding this removal by the IP. I don't understand the legitimacy of such removal when the sentence talks about South Asia and a high steppe group from that region - the Kalash and not central Asia. We had a consensus for this here (I'm Fyl BTW). - 117.201.116.232 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @F.: If it's really you: you're greatly missed, man! Agree, the rationale for the removal in the edit summary is quite off the mark. I've restored a trimmed version of it. –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * New trimmed version looks fine. I'd even be happy with 'found at significant levels in some modern European / S Asian populations', or whatever. Someone really needs to rewrite that whole article, especially the 'Studies' section... 🙄  Tewdar   13:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be fine if we just renamed it "Scribbleboard"; it doesn't really look much different from ours in my sandbox 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support for calling it 'Scribbleboard' until that section is restructured properly. 😁  Tewdar   13:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks man, been out of town for quite sometime. Thanks for restoring that. Tewder's version → 'found at significant levels in some modern European / S Asian populations' seems better IMO. Mentioning select few pops in the lede always has the potential to cause disagreements. - 117.201.115.250 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tewdar!


Happy New Year! Tewdar, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * TY for your very funny and wonderful comment. The only thing that saddens me is that I truly work hard to NEVER be blocked, and now that I was blocked, I will forever have that 'scar' on my 'permanent record'... :( — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Happy New Year to you too! Try to ignore the criminal record, this is the most ridiculous block I've ever seen. What a bunch o' grinches! 😂  Tewdar   18:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I am actually not even seeing it show up on my 'Block log' right now? Perhaps too recent?
 * My only thought on the "criminal record" issue is how it could impact my outstanding requests for new perms, like the 'New Page Reviewer' perm that I am currently applying for. Or any other perms that I may apply for in the future. I already have Rollback, pending changes reviewer, and AWB, and I likely will apply for others as needed and as I continue to grow in my aid of building the encyclopedia. TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would think that nobody sensible will give a donkey's fart that you were blocked for sending New Year's greetings. It's more likely that the blocking admin will lose their tools and be sent into early retirement in my opinion. 😁  Tewdar   18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The conversation is ongoing here at the Teahouse now. FYI — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'll take a look. I started working on a new bot for mass delivering festive messages - hope you don't mind me naming it after you! (don't worry, it's just a joke 😂)  Tewdar   22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, love it! TY for your work and all you do for Wikipedia. :) — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And here's my belated Happy New Year! Also dropping by to tell you that I've come across this new paper, certainly a good addition for Genetic History of Europe and the WHG article. Oh and tell me once you get hold of a shareable copy of this new book 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link, and Happy New Year to you too! I've been 'hunting' for that book for a while, with no success... might have to buy it! (LOL!) I'll let you know if I ever get hold of it... 😁  Tewdar   22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably I will do so too, I mean it's less costly than a single article download from Cell 😂. Btw, I think a certain friend of ours that regularly crosses our path is back. I don't terrible care about it as long as he doesn't play tricks (like editing from multiple accounts) or wastes his and our time with endless bickering. I believe that just like you and me, he likes to hunt for good new sources and enjoys reading them. Maybe we just have to get it into his head that not everything that is a temporary fun read for us necessarily has to be added to WP by all means as if it was the ultimate source of wisdom 😁. –Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna make a concerted effort to get that book later tonight if I can, don't give up hope yet! I'm disappointed, for a second there I thought you meant Mr A. Hole... I think that other fellow was just banned for copy vio or something originally, weren't they? I'm not that familiar with them, but we can't ban everyone who writes bullshit, we'd lose 90% of regular editors and 50% of our admins! Hell, I'd probably be banned! 😂  Tewdar   17:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ☹️ Can't find it. Maybe next month? Should've asked for it for Christmas, I suppose... Why do some outlets (eg the publisher) say it was published in December, and some say it won't be published until February?  Tewdar   20:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Books says they'll have it by 28 Feb. –Austronesier (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Note re ANI
Regarding my views on racial equality, let me trust you confidentially with this pic from my Flckr photostream. – Sca (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice pic. Sadly, my opinion one way or the other probably won't make any difference to your unblock request. But, if the joke was not a reference to Chinese pronunciation of English, I'm afraid I don't understand the joke...and if you can't come up with an explanation, I think people are just going to assume it was an l/r joke.  Tewdar   16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it was just a stupid joke, a lame attempt at humor, and that's all it was to me. -- Sca (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My comment
Sometimes I channel my inner Hulk into something productive. But if you didn't get that reference, you need to watch more movies! :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't watch many movies. The last one I watched was The Polar Express. I think Lightyear is next on the list...   Tewdar   20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to watch Lightyear, though sadly I've not found the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have fallen for a common misconception about lightyears. You should have said "sadly I've not found the distance". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! 😂👍  Tewdar   20:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics
Hi Tewdar. Are you aware of the designation of some topics as contentious topics? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a joke, yes? 🤔  Tewdar   17:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Who the fuck is Prem Rawat, though? 😂  Tewdar   17:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I said! But for real, your awareness list is bananas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can easily spot the hidden message behind the awareness templates which goes: "Folks, I have been actively editing and commenting in certain contentious topic areas and have internalized the AE rules to such a point that I don't just apply them to contentious topics, but to all articles and talk pages in general." 😄 –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well... it is true that I apply the same personal rules to all articles and talk pages... 😁 I'm keeping this list up while Newimpartial and Sideswipe are still active editors. 😂  Tewdar   18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's OK, in these days of contentious topics no longer do you have to issue annual reminders. Once you're aware, you're aware 👀 Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still keeping it up, just in case anybody 'forgets' that I'm aware and continues to use these templates for their traditional purpose (intimidation, preparation for a visit to ANI, etc. etc.) 😁  Tewdar   08:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH?
While I appreciate your capacity for nitpicking, the connection you were at such pains to disentangle is not actually WP:OR (of which SYNTH is a subsection). The connection was made explicitly by Gemma Stone, in a piece linked by Novaris Media. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't used as a citation, was it? I'd hardly call it an explicit connection even if it was, but I suppose you might not agree. I'd throw both sections in the WP:TRASH if it were up to me. And didn't I ban you from my talk page? Oh alright, I'll rescind the ban since the primroses are out, the woodpeckers are pecking, and the frogspawn is in the ponds, but only if you try not to be too annoying. 😁  Tewdar   13:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tewdar. I plumb forgot about your (seemingly impulsive) "ban"; I would have posted this at my talk and pinged you instead, had I remembered.
 * For the record, I have nothing against the paragraph break you added, and while parallel headings at the same level seemed an exaggerated separation I had decided (prior to Colin's WP:EW warning) not to revert that either.
 * And yes, I would say Stone's piece was directly connecting the two, using same-sex marriage as an example of Alliance activists' indifference to LGB rights claims. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not banned any more. Just try not to lower the tone too much. There are very high standards on this talk page that I expect all visitors to uphold. 🤣  Tewdar   16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My placement of this comment on my own Talk rather than here is meant to testify to my respect for (or perhaps intimidation by) the standards on this Talk page. :p Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article by Gemma Stone takes their "its laws" claim and cites counter examples of same-sex marriage, age of consent and Section 28. They took the "its activities" claim with counter examples of giving blood and serving in the military. From that, a reasonable person might conclude LGB Alliance were talking about "Gay and lesbian rights" and there's nothing in their tweet nor in the various writers responses to indicate anyone thought they were specifically talking about same sex marriage. One can counter a general point with specific counterpoint (or counterpoints), and it would very much be SYNTH to claim they were making a specific point in the first place. -- Colin°Talk 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Colin, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. As far as I know, nobody is taking the "its laws" tweet itself as being a comment by the Alliance about same-sex marriage. But the statement is a falsification of queer history that lays the ground work for indifference to rights claims, e.g., to legal marriage equality, on the part of the Alliance - and that is what Stone points out. The issues are connected by Stone (who is one of Novaris Media's cited sources on this), so the connection is not WP:OR. Of course the section was written, titled and formatted badly before, but "you can't blame British Rail for that". Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not biting, Newimpartial. Tewdar can if they want to; it's their talk page. -- Colin°Talk 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like TheTranarchist (!) partially agrees(!!!) with ol' Tewdar...  Tewdar   14:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The irony is, though, that there is consensus on the page (plus your comment above) for deleting the section(s), making their heading moot. -- Colin°Talk 14:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I seriously think it's only there to make (the) LGB Alliance look bad worse. It has minimal encyclopaedic purpose (if any). It's a shame that WP:RUBBISH is already taken...  Tewdar   14:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice profile
I like it. Cornwall is awesome btw.

Kikiopae (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes it is awesome. There used to be a lovely photo of a Cornish beach on my user page, but I took it down in case too many people found out about it!  Tewdar   10:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

IE
I hate Google. They have it even when we can't get it yet from CUP ☹ Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm having an anthropomorphic stele like the one on the front cover put on top of my pit-grave, unless my loved-ones decide to spend the money on something less extravagant. I expect it'll be 3 inches high and made of Fimo.  Tewdar   20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm looking forward to the embargo on this ending, too.  Tewdar   20:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:RX for the thesis? Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I only just found out about RX from you just then 😁. Maybe I'll give it a try if you think it's worth a shot.  Tewdar   22:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RX is always worth a shot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In case you wondered why you can't have nice things
This kind of long-term POV editing against consensus is why you can't have nice things. Plans like that one make me regret each time that - against my better judgement - I give an inch to the mammals, trying to be "reasonable". Newimpartial (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * While I do not agree that Marxist cultural analysis (a term which is is even less common than 'cultural Marxism', pace OrdersOfMagnitude and EndRunsRoundConsensus) should be merged into Cultural studies, I don't really see any necessary knock-on effect on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, apart from having to change the redirect at the top. And regarding 'long-term POV editing', surely you're not suggesting that the lede ought to be inconsistent with the body and the reliable sources? 🤔  Tewdar   09:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that the current lede is consistent with the body and the reliable sources, and that what I am tediously facing is an attempt to selectively re-frame the RS (including, in the recently closed RfC, her attempts to misread and misrepresent sources that you had collected by word search) in order to add content that aligns with her POV, in order eventually to restructure the article (because that went so well the last time) and rewrite the lead. Long term projects to rewrite articles based on "what an editor knows to be true" are exhausting to resist, and encourage bad habits in the editors resisting them.
 * The one insight I am prepared to accept, from the recent discussions, is that "Marxist cultural theory" is at least a solid synonym for, if not the COMMONNAME of, Marxist cultural analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you OK?
I'm not sure what your intention was but your last three edit summaries on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could provide more than ample ammunition for anybody seeking to make more trouble for you than you are making for yourself. What is done is done, and I'm not going to do anything with it, but maybe don't do that again. DanielRigal (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What? I added requested content from the talk page. Seems undue to me, but we'll see what others think. And no I'm not okay. Fuckers making all sorts of totally baseless accusations and insinuations here about me, too cowardly to substantiate or admit they're wrong. And for what? For adding sociology content to the sex and gender distinction page? For fighting pseudo-racism on human genetics articles? For calling ROGD fringe, but not pseudoscience, oh no I must be anti-trans? For adding sourced content and structure to the cultural Marxism article and pointing out where it's wrong or poorly sourced? Maybe you can tell me.  Tewdar   11:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to cause you trouble. I am advising you that you are causing yourself trouble and that you are making it easier for other people who might want to cause you trouble. Seriously. It would be the work of a moment for anybody to drag you to ANI over those edit summaries citing WP:POINT or whatever. It's Sunday. Maybe take the day off from Wikipedia and do something more relaxing instead? DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with the content I added to the article, though. Like I said (also in my sarcastic edit summaries), I don't see a lot of point to this content, but I think others should decide. I doubt anyone's bringing me to ANI over that, but nothing would surprise me here. Anyway, I'm editing something nice and tranquil now, anyway. Let's see if that'll keep horrible racist homophobic transphobic Tewdar out of trouble...  Tewdar   13:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)