User talk:Vanished user sdjei4o346jowe3/Archive 0

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Reconsider !  04:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello Jembana, I have seen your work on the Modern Celts page. The signing with four tildes is not needed in the edit summary as it is always accompanied by your username. You just need to use it on any of the Talk pages, either for articles or other Users.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, Felix - I'm doing that now :)Jembana (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Celts (modern)
While I applaud the significant amount of work you are putting into this article, I am concerned that much of it is uncited. The subject is highly controversial, with a number of editors (not just IPs) who are hostile to the concept, ready and able to take pot-shots at every opportunity (and some, no doubt, who are just biding their time). Please don't provide them with any ammunition that would allow them to shoot it down. You are obviously well read on the subject. But, I can tell you from experience, that it is far easier to add citations while you add content, than it is to find the references after you have finished working on the article. Good luck. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I endeavour to cite everything I put up and provide citations whenever I see some work where others have flagged that citations are missing in other author's work for some time without response. I may have left some gaps myself which I will backfill since I know the references I was thinking of when I wrote the text - I can always cite what I write. Nice of you to explain to me - much appreciated.Jembana (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
You've just added a YouTube link - please only add links when it is explicitly not a copyright violation, Wikipedia is conservative on this issue. In this case it was obviously a copyright violation from the BBC. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dougweller, I will check this out and ask James directly about it. BTW I met him in Uigg when he performed at a Ceilidh - very impressive :)
 * Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucitanian and Tartessian
Hi,

We really should discuss this stuff on the talk page. The general consensus is that Lucitanian is not Celtic. Although we can mention there is disagreement, per WP:Weight it should be no more than that. I don't know how the Tartessian-is-Celtic idea has been received, but something so obvious surely would have been noticed before, which makes me suspicious. Per WP guidelines on WP:Reliable sources, we need peer reviews of Koch's ideas, not just Koch's word for it. Also, your refs claiming that one language is Celtic denies that the other is! — kwami (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Regarding Tartessian (since this is where you made the last changes), Professor Koch's paper on Tartessian was published just last year in even more detail than I have shown here in a journal whose papers are peer-reviewed. That journal is in the reading list of the article. In that journal Professor Koch credits the previous researchers who noticed that Tartessian appears to be Celtic.Jembana (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, many have thought that lookooboo niiraboo in the Fonte Velha 6 inscription was obviously Celtic (J. A. Correa, Francisco Villar, Carlos Jordán, for example). Also Arganthonios has been identified as Celtic by earlier writers.Jembana (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be having problems with NPOV; while you may be convinced of the Atlantic Bronze Age theory for the origin of the Celts, other people, including most of the authorities, are not. This isn't the place for advocacy. Paul S (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm just presenting the evidence and I think you both know that, NBY mate.Jembana (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are engaged in advocacy for a fringe theory while simultaneously conflating Koch's Atlantic Celtic theory (Altantic Bronze Age 1300BC onwards) with theories regarding genetic distribution after the Last Ice Age (8000BC) Paul S (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you call a joint University of Wales, Oxford University (et academics collaborative book and conference a fringe theory ? These are respected scholars. You ignore the now well-established and growing multi-disciplinary evidence. It is on the record that you delete at will links to peer-reviewed articles in respected journals.Jembana (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems Messrs Cunliffe, Karl, Guerra, McEvoy, Bradley; Oppenheimer, Rrvik, Isaac, Parsons, Koch, Freeman and Wodtko disagree with you (2010): see Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature. Oxbow Books and Celtic Studies Publications. pp. 384. ISBN 978-1-84217-410-4.Jembana (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see not fringe at all, but I think you know that alreadyJembana (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, as I said, you are conflating two separate theories. Oppenheimer's fringe theory and Koch's fringe theory are not the same thing at all. Second, irrespective of the academic credentials of the advocate (this is an Argument from authority) a fringe theory remains fringe if every other authority in the World rejects it, which is indeed the case here - for both theories. Paul S (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fringe theory only in your imagination and it is indeed a pity that you cannot see the strength of a multi-disciplinary approach. But as I said before be prepared to substantiate what you write because I note that a lot of what you write is not cited (and you like to remove others citations) which may indicate that what you write indeed comes from your imagination or prejudices and is not rooted in evidence from the real world.Jembana (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

re:
No problem. If you encounter any issues don't hesitate to ask me, or the people at WP:HELP.- Reconsider !  08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link - I'll have a read.Jembana (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tartessian
Suggesting people are 'vandals' for deleting controversial ideas presented as Truth on an article is not likely to get you a sympathetic hearing from other editors. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing citations or the main arguments from peer-reviewed articles of highly respected researchers in the field is vandalism. Such suppression of information reflects the POV of the vandal and therefore violates WP:NPOVJembana (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and saw that you're a learned person interested in (small) languages and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Encantats d'ajudar :)Jembana (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vaccaei: Betascript Publishing book in references
Hi, Jembana. In the Vaccaei page, you've referenced a Betascript Publishing book: Do you know what kinds of books are produced by this publishing house? See: User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, VDM Publishing, and. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies - thanks for the heads up on this - I will avoid them in future. You are right in another sense, it looks like it could be a circular reference - would that be your interpretation too ?Jembana (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a circular reference but with a retroactive component: αβscript & Fastbook Publishing are fixing outdated pages of WP. The historian Mills Kelly has written an interesting reflection about this: "What concerns me is that by publishing a dynamic, crowdsourced article in a book, BetaScript is fixing that content in time and space, an act that might well lead to the perpetuation of what a colleague calls “zombie facts” — “facts” that once in the record just won’t go away no matter how hard we try to kill them." (http://weblog.histnet.ch/archives/3701 archived in WebCite: http://www.webcitation.org/5qxaxuAGR) Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That could have very serious implications. Rewriting history, for one. Can to Wikipedia stop them from doing this ?Jembana (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to fight this German publishing group is to disseminate information about it and its noxious work. I'm disappointed by the passivity of WP. See: User talk:Kasaalan/Publisher. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Celtic choirs


The article List of Celtic choirs has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Directory listing of (what would be) red links. Fails WP:NOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nuttah (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuttah, your reasons for proposing this are obscure to me and certainly not apparent from reading what you have written or what's on your Wiki link. Please explain with specifics.Jembana (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lepontic language
Please don't start an edit war over Lepontic language. It's really not necessary. I simply reorganized the information and (with all due respect) put it in better English, I believe. I also clarified the difference between the old sources (e.g. Whatmough and Pisani) and the new ones (e.g. Kruta and Stifter). I appreciate the fact you added all those citations from the latter two: your cited information is still all there, if you bother to check. I did not remove any of it, nor did I add any unsourced information. The content is essentially the same, but it was important to differentiate the position taken by earlier scholars, such as Whatmough and Pisani, which I am very familiar with, and that of more recent ones, such as Kruta and Stifter, which you are obviously more familiar with. Your version tended to throw those two together, which is not correct. Perhaps you hit Undo without carefully reviewing my edits, but, as I repeat, your additions are all still there! Pasquale (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You reverted out well-sourced peer-reviewed inline citations which firmly established the Celtic nature of Lepontic and replaced it with information with no inline citations at all, in fact none at all were referenced.Jembana (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, young man, if you say that, I can only conclude that you did not even bother to read my version! I absolutely did nothing of the sort. All your "well-sourced peer-reviewed inline citations" are exactly where you put them. I did not replace any of it. As I repeat, I simply clarified the older, very well-known position, expressed by Whatmough and Pisani, among others, that Lepontic was to be considered as "para-Celtic" rather than Celtic. While this is a historical position now, it should not be twisted as your version does, and without inline citations, by the way. In other words, if you are going to twist Whatmough's and Pisani's positions as you (perhaps inadvertently) do, then you should provide inline citations from Whatmough's and Pisani's works, right? But you don't. 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pasquale, I agree your new version is better written than mine - thanks :) Jembana (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thanks again for adding all those references to Kruta and Stifter, which are indeed very valuable. Their work certainly brings a more balanced perspective to this much-debated question. Pasquale (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Astures
Hello! In the article Astures you've added a ref named "harry", but didn't name any of your new sources "harry". I'm not certain which one you want, would you please go back and identify one? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed - many thanks Salamurai :) Jembana (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates
Time to invoke WP:UTN when appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good on you for your efforts to maintain the integrity of the Celts page against persistent vandalism by users refusing to use inline citations for their POV. :) Jembana (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Castelletto Ticino S 113 575BC.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Castelletto Ticino S 113 575BC.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stan, Please see your talk page. We need to discuss this. Jembana (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, You need to send a message confirming the permission queue at OTRS( permissions-en@wikimedia.org ). Images on Wikipedia, generally need to have 'permission' for release under CC-BY-SA or another free license. Thusly a permission to use an Image on Wikipedia is incomplete, if it's not an explicit 'free' licence (and I will check what the page actually now says) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done a little of a precis that summarises why it is free to use and why the attribution is necessary (in case someone else want to use it elsewhere). Thanks, Stan - I should have made that clearer. Jembana (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish Republic
Hi. In this edit you added a reference to the "Irish Republic". This is not the name of the modern state. The BBC may use this term some times (for political reasons) but - in modern/accurate parlance - the name of the state is either "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland". Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is Eire - I will correct the English - thanks. Jembana (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. You might want to see Names of the Irish state. The following quote summarises the situation: name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland." Tameamseo (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both I and then you corrected this, so this is resolved from my point of view - BTW I did find your quote from the 2006 Census - apologies. Jembana (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the term 'Gael'
Hi Jembana - I wanted to ask if you had any information on this subject, other than the cited references in the related articles here on WP. The hypothesis currently in vogue here is based on Koch's work in 'Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia', and I have no issue with that per se - it's published and verifiable - and thus valid for inclusion.

My question arises from the fact that while the etymology seems to make sense, the time window doesn't seem to gel. Koch proposes the first half of the 7th Century as the window for the borrowing, and therein lies the issue - "Irish" influence in Wales and Scotland was waning severely after nearly two hundred years - why wait so long and then adopt a term 'on the way home'.

In Scotland, Pictish and Northumbrian Angles influence was on the rise, and Brythonic and Gaelic in decline. The Pictish population obviously became gaelicised over the next couple of centuries, as evidenced in the re-emergence of Dal Riata. Regionally, the Latin term 'Scots' obviously took precedence as the external term for these tribes.

Cunedda had booted the strongest Irish tribes (the Laighn) out of Wales over a century before (calling them 'Gwynedd', from 'Feni' - thus reducing the chances that the term came south from Gododdin). The possible remaining tribe(s) (Déisi) were 'vassals' - hardly important enough to spark the borrowing across Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man.

The Irish missions in Europe up to the time window as per Koch consisted of at most a few dozen monks following Columbanus - thus it's unlikely their descendants carried the borrowing back, and in any case, a Brythonic borrowing hardly came from the Franks, Italians or Germanics - again, evidenced further from the use of 'Scots' to refer to them.

I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something here, and if so, I'd appreciate a nudge in the right direction - the last time I raised this question on WP I was severely chewed, and fobbed off with 'complex cultural and social changes at the time', but nothing that I could read up on was forthcoming.

Thanks, Gabhala (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Koch's origin from the patrilineal descent from Gaedel Glas in the epic poems of the old Gaelic manuscripts does seem feasible historically since these manuscripts were a recording of the oral tradition at the time. However, there are other possible origins from the words for grove (the woods), brave and hill in the insular celtic language groups with trails of place names echoing these words in various locations in Europe-Near East that may have local relevance. Was the patronymic ancestor named after one of these ? These are interesting questions for further research.Jembana (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, on the Fonte Vela Tartessian Celtic inscription (script from 825 BC) someone is described as "kalte" meaning Celt/Celts - see Koch's paper is Celtic from the West (Oxbow).Jembana (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gabhala - I have a paper and a review of it that answers your question courtesy of a friend. Is this for the Gaels page that you were reached agreement with another editor on if a reliable source could be found ? Please let me know and I can help.Jembana (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jembana. It actually started with my personal curiosity - I have the type of personality that takes very little at face value, so the consensus version of the origin here on WP was itching at me for a while. Then I raised the question a little while back in response to another user's question at Gaul.  I'm not trying to obliterate the current consensus theory - but I do think it's not so cut and dried, so I feel that alternative theories, or even theories giving more detail on the 'how' from reputable sources should be included in the relevant articles.  I would be very interested in finding out more, if you do have information related to my query.  To answer your other question, yes, one of the other editors involved in the previous discussion has agreed that they will support the inclusion of alternative theories from reputable and verifiable sources. Thanks for your help on this, by the way. Gabhala (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gabhala, I have re-enabled my email - please send me an email and we can discuss in more detail. Maybe I don't know enough to operate email via the WP because another editor was open to me contacting but I couldn't find that editor's email address even though it was enabled - better luck this time. Any help you have on how to do this would be appreciated - please excuse my ignorance.Jembana (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Let me know if it doesn't come through... Gabhala (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hispano-Celtic
Hi Jembana,

I really don't have the background to contribute much to the discussion. There have been what appeared to be rather POV edits in the past, but perhaps the peer-reviewed research really does support such a clade now. I wouldn't know, as I haven't read the peer reviews. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kwami

To answer your implied question that you also asked of another potential editor on the Lusitanian talk page (who chose not to contribute after your query), I have confirmation that Celtic from the West was peer-reviewed and confirmed that the person confirming this is the responsible person for such confirmation.Jembana (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tartessian1.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Tartessian1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)