User talk:AKAKIOS
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, AKAKIOS, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Criticism of Zwarte Piet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —teb728 t c 22:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Germanic peoples map
[edit]
Hello, I'd like to raise a couple of issues, regarding your map edit: First item, you're map is a different map from the one originally uploaded, in this case you need to create a new file (per Wiki guidelines). Second item, can I ask you what source you are using as reference, because some of the borders you have between ancient Germanic dialects are just modern bounders, like between Poland and Czech Rep. which definitely is a bit odd. Finally, third item, regarding early-Slavs (the over-lap area) I referenced couple of maps to create this mixed zone. Please remember that in those days you did not have clear boundires between groups there was constant movement and overlap. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- One more note, regarding Weser-Rhine Germanic, (Istvaeonic) dialect if you notice part of the area is inside the Roman Empire on the other side of the Rhine, in which case you have a mix of Romano-Celts and Germanic peoples, so you can't just mark that area as purely Germanic speaking – not in 1 AD. --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes the map is different from the original one. The reason I replaced it was that I thought this would save a lot of time replacing the original, which is quite inaccurate. In fact, it seems to be based on a 19th century map. As for the borders, the Sudetes mountain range is what effectively divides those areas, not the modern borders. As for your map (which mind you is also quite different from the one originally there) I doubt the Slavic settlement in the area at that time. Could you provide a source on that?
- To be perfectly honest, I've come about a much better map (better than my current one, the previous one and yours) some time ago. It is of a slightly later time, but includes both more linguistic information and includes natural boundaries such as moors, deep forests, rivers and mountains. I'll try to find it and upload it in a short while. I'd love for you to comment on it! AKAKIOS (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've attached another map in it's description there is a list of the sources — there are several other maps which show the original Slavic homeland. Also, please remember about the Balts, they were in the same area during this time. As for the border... well I know the Sudetes are a boundary, but you have the exact modern day boundaries which does look suspect in terms of accuracy. Remember in those days it's not like today where a tribe just drew a border these bounders were very fluid, with uninhabited ares (not like today). --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, for now share you proposed chart on the image talk page, just to tweak it and get it right — drawing general strait line bounders because these are not really bounders (in the modern sense) but "zones" where the language and people were present at a given time. --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've attached another map in it's description there is a list of the sources — there are several other maps which show the original Slavic homeland. Also, please remember about the Balts, they were in the same area during this time. As for the border... well I know the Sudetes are a boundary, but you have the exact modern day boundaries which does look suspect in terms of accuracy. Remember in those days it's not like today where a tribe just drew a border these bounders were very fluid, with uninhabited ares (not like today). --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I've come about a much better map (better than my current one, the previous one and yours) some time ago. It is of a slightly later time, but includes both more linguistic information and includes natural boundaries such as moors, deep forests, rivers and mountains. I'll try to find it and upload it in a short while. I'd love for you to comment on it! AKAKIOS (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I don't mind if you create a new chart, but the colors will have to match the old legend, otherwise you'll need to adjust it on every page where the old map was used, also perhaps you could show the 'mixed' zones on the other side of the Rhine river and the original proto-Slavic homeland which was present at least in southern Poland at that time. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm impressed this is a very good map you just added, all the while I was trying to slightly improve the old version! --E-960 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I didn't include your labels, because the map is being used on so many Wikis. I don't know if there's a way to quickly fix that or to project labels/links on the image.AKAKIOS (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's actually a good point, I did not even think that the map is used on different language Wikipedias. --E-960 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I didn't include your labels, because the map is being used on so many Wikis. I don't know if there's a way to quickly fix that or to project labels/links on the image.AKAKIOS (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello AKAKIOS, could I make small suggestions on the Germanic dialects map, perhaps it might be a bit more recognizable if you ran the border of the Roman Empire all the way across the map, also in the 'mixed areas' the diagonal lines are hard to see, particularly in the area of Czech Rep. you almost can't see the distinction between the two zones unless you fully open the map. In any case, I very much support the new map over the old one. --E-960 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to edit that the coming week! AKAKIOS (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, here's a map of Germanic settlements which might be a useful source in the ongoing dispute. --E-960 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, AKAKIOS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Istvaeonic languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Somme and 79 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please consider the above-mentioned policy and please delete the two content fork articles you made on 7th December of the Istvaeonic languages article (the re-created Istvaeones, which you previously created, and Weser-Rhine Germanic which User:PRehse created but apparently somehow because of you?). As an alternative approach, I think you should do the following, which is not only the normal method, but can also work better: (1) concerning discussion about the content on that article, please edit on that article, and post on that article talk page. (2) We can copy the new talk page discussion also. (3) Concerning merge ideas etc please give your rationale on the Istvaeonic languages, rather than any new article. I think this approach is very clearly the right one to follow?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Updates:
- I note your different approach on the Franks article. I will work where you have placed tabs. While some of the tabs are a bit vague at least some are clear.
- I note that concerning linguistic "Istvaeonic", you are now working on Low Franconian languages.
- Concerning the above subject, as discussed on the talk page of User:PRehse, I misunderstood above, and you created both the new articles. Because the two new articles are very clearly POV forks, they should be changed back to redirects until your merge proposal (or is it really in effect a split proposal? Or re-name proposal) can be discussed. All content discussions and merge/split/re-name discussions should be one article for now. (And ideally they should never have been moved from the article Istvaeones where they were originally being discussed.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned the discussion on Istvaeonic languages is now about wether it should redirect to Istvaeones or Weser-Rhine Germanic, with my support (as mentioned days ago on the talk page) being for the latter. To be perfectly honest, I really don't see the point of you writing text after text on talk pages with vague questions, assumptions and superfluous advice. Nor am I interested in defending or arguing for a postion (keeping the article combined) which nobody seems to support. I'm being bold and simply doing what is best: splitting an article (a situation complicated mainly by my own previous edits) into two proper and distinct articles. For some reason you have become personally invested in the matter, and I think this is counterproductive. I'm interested in expanding and improving the information on my fields of interest. You have a confusing way of discussion matters, and seem to be following me around on Wikipedia. Please leave me alone, and, if you think a matter needs discussing, try to keep it to the point and factual; so that other editors have a change to solve a matter, instead of getting bogged down in incomprehenisible talk page discussion. I'd suggest you focus yourself on the Franks article instead of me, seeing that you have a lot of sources and references to add there with regard to your recent changes. Again: I'm here for the editing, not for the drama. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Starting with a positive, thank you for using the tagging approach on Chamavi also now, as in Franks. That is a more practical approach, because I can understand more or less and try to resolve issues. A lot of what you write above though, such as your speculations about my knowledge, or accusing me of following you around, is ad hominem and silly. Instead of answering that sort of stuff at length I think it is much better to just beg you to try to edit in the WP-recommended ways, appropriate to collaboration. There is no point telling other editors to go away on Wikipedia, so stop making such demands, and stop trying to make private articles. (If you want to work alone, do not work on Wikipedia.) The fact of the matter is that some of the approaches you took have now created a mess (including parallel articles), and that mess needs fixing. Please now delete the two POVFORK articles as per WP policy, and move all discussion and editing to the ONE article for now. (It is nicer if you do it yourself. But it will need to be done anyway.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Stop accusing me of telling you to leave, or provide the diffs to prove it. AKAKIOS (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Starting with a positive, thank you for using the tagging approach on Chamavi also now, as in Franks. That is a more practical approach, because I can understand more or less and try to resolve issues. A lot of what you write above though, such as your speculations about my knowledge, or accusing me of following you around, is ad hominem and silly. Instead of answering that sort of stuff at length I think it is much better to just beg you to try to edit in the WP-recommended ways, appropriate to collaboration. There is no point telling other editors to go away on Wikipedia, so stop making such demands, and stop trying to make private articles. (If you want to work alone, do not work on Wikipedia.) The fact of the matter is that some of the approaches you took have now created a mess (including parallel articles), and that mess needs fixing. Please now delete the two POVFORK articles as per WP policy, and move all discussion and editing to the ONE article for now. (It is nicer if you do it yourself. But it will need to be done anyway.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned the discussion on Istvaeonic languages is now about wether it should redirect to Istvaeones or Weser-Rhine Germanic, with my support (as mentioned days ago on the talk page) being for the latter. To be perfectly honest, I really don't see the point of you writing text after text on talk pages with vague questions, assumptions and superfluous advice. Nor am I interested in defending or arguing for a postion (keeping the article combined) which nobody seems to support. I'm being bold and simply doing what is best: splitting an article (a situation complicated mainly by my own previous edits) into two proper and distinct articles. For some reason you have become personally invested in the matter, and I think this is counterproductive. I'm interested in expanding and improving the information on my fields of interest. You have a confusing way of discussion matters, and seem to be following me around on Wikipedia. Please leave me alone, and, if you think a matter needs discussing, try to keep it to the point and factual; so that other editors have a change to solve a matter, instead of getting bogged down in incomprehenisible talk page discussion. I'd suggest you focus yourself on the Franks article instead of me, seeing that you have a lot of sources and references to add there with regard to your recent changes. Again: I'm here for the editing, not for the drama. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Het Nederlands, Janssen, G. (2005) P. 57-59
[edit]You specify this book on multiple occasions (even with the same page numbers). However, I can find no trace of either the book nor the author. Please specify the ISBN number or provide clearer details before citing it again. Thanks. Also Low franconian and netherlandic are not the same. The latter is an alternative for "dutch" the former a group of dialects. Do not confuse. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- And please repect WP:BRD. You are confusing Dutch with a group of dialects. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- No I'm not, just wait a moment. I'm writing on the talk page of the article as we speak. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please remember that the onus of gaining consensus is on you in this situation. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very much aware, similarly please remember WP:AGF. Thanks. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Still waiting. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find the remark somewhat belittling. It's a lot of text, on a difficult to explain subject with source material in 3 languages and I want to present the argument as convincingly as possible: that takes time. I'll finish it as soon as possible, instead of waiting for it ... why don't you go for a walk. I've heard it's snowing in the Netherlands at the moment.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- So that "as we speak" was a little joke? Just pulling my leg? You don't think "why don't you go for a walk. I've heard it's snowing in the Netherlands at the moment" is somewhat "belittling"? Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- No ... because I am really working on the argument as we speak, multiple tabs. I really don't understand the tone in your comments towards me, to be honest. You even took my friendly suggestion not to waste your time pressing F5 the wrong way.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- How much time does it take to type in an ISBN-number as I requested? I assume you have immediate access to the book you cited. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I said right away, I was very much busy writing a complicated argument. Apart from that, I'm not your personal assistant, so you just had to wait. It's a request after all, as you yourself said, not an order. I think the reason why you couldn't find the book is because Google Books seems to have added the subtitle to the main title, turning it into "Het Nederlands vroeger en nu" online. It's a short introductory book, and its ISBN is 9033457822. AKAKIOS (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- You mean where the language is referred to as "Oudnederfrankisch" (i.e. Old low franconian, [1]) Your own <censored> sources disagree with you. Lees je eigenlijk Nederlands of zuig je je beweringen gewoon uit je duim? Kleuske (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, you've misread the source, which I did not censor. Old Low Franconian is not the same concept as Low Frankish. I already explained this in my rationale @Talk:Netherlandic languages. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- You mean where the language is referred to as "Oudnederfrankisch" (i.e. Old low franconian, [1]) Your own <censored> sources disagree with you. Lees je eigenlijk Nederlands of zuig je je beweringen gewoon uit je duim? Kleuske (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I said right away, I was very much busy writing a complicated argument. Apart from that, I'm not your personal assistant, so you just had to wait. It's a request after all, as you yourself said, not an order. I think the reason why you couldn't find the book is because Google Books seems to have added the subtitle to the main title, turning it into "Het Nederlands vroeger en nu" online. It's a short introductory book, and its ISBN is 9033457822. AKAKIOS (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- How much time does it take to type in an ISBN-number as I requested? I assume you have immediate access to the book you cited. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- No ... because I am really working on the argument as we speak, multiple tabs. I really don't understand the tone in your comments towards me, to be honest. You even took my friendly suggestion not to waste your time pressing F5 the wrong way.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- So that "as we speak" was a little joke? Just pulling my leg? You don't think "why don't you go for a walk. I've heard it's snowing in the Netherlands at the moment" is somewhat "belittling"? Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find the remark somewhat belittling. It's a lot of text, on a difficult to explain subject with source material in 3 languages and I want to present the argument as convincingly as possible: that takes time. I'll finish it as soon as possible, instead of waiting for it ... why don't you go for a walk. I've heard it's snowing in the Netherlands at the moment.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Still waiting. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very much aware, similarly please remember WP:AGF. Thanks. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please remember that the onus of gaining consensus is on you in this situation. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- No I'm not, just wait a moment. I'm writing on the talk page of the article as we speak. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit war
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Low Franconian languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rua (mew) 19:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Netherlandic sound shift for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Netherlandic sound shift is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlandic sound shift until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- Per WP:Outing violation as discussed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)