User talk:Alphasinus

Your GA nomination of Refugee controversy in Sjöbo

The article Refugee controversy in Sjöbo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Refugee controversy in Sjöbo for things which need to be addressed. Lord Roem (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes look great! I will now promote! Congrats! :-) Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue at Eye color

Hello, Alphasinus. I'm not sure why you keep dividing the Blue section up like this, but there is no need to split the section up like that and give the eye color blue more prominence than the other eye colors. It comes off as WP:UNDUE (the more prominence aspect, not the viewpoint aspect). Further, most of the sections are extremely small, which only further showcases that no division is needed. It also encourages people to add more to the sections, ignoring the other eye colors and continuing to give the eye color blue more prominence. This is why I reverted you. That, and because of dubious changes made by others. If you are going to continue to insist that the sections be divided that way, then let me know. I am more than willing to listen to your rationale for why the Blue section should be divided, and I will bring other editors in on the matter as well, as I am not interested in getting into a WP:Edit war with you over this. I'll post a section about this at the Eye color talk page, and you can respond there instead of on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your reasons for the change. I replied on the talk page, and will continue to reply there on the matter. Flyer22 (talk)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Nessos

Hi! I have already written almost everything I could find about this battle in the article for Battle of Naissus. I think the only extant source about it is Zosimus' Historia Nova

You could not find any more details because the sources of this period are extremely confused. It seems that Romans won a major or (according to another view) a minor battle against the Herulian branch of the invasion.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Concerning his nationality, this has been discussed endlessly on the talk page. In art histories, he is always referred to, by convention as an Italian painter. There are histories of "Italian" painting, which deal with the art of the entire landmass and begin with the Etruscans. The sort of purism that insists that Italy didn't exist, because tit didn't exist politically doesn't work for practical purposes. Amandajm (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

lead of article Germany

Hello Alphasinus, just wanted to thank you for considering my critical comments to improve the article about Germany. As this article has seen it's fair share of back and forth editing (by other editors), it's much appreciated, when differing opinions can be handled so constructive. In my view there is nothing wrong with brief additions in history, we just need to keep it's overall size in mind. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Handel's nationality

Hi. Just a quick word about your edit in which you removed the "British" part of Handel's nationality. There has been a long-standing consensus at the article to describe Handel's nationality as "German-British", and your edit has been reverted to that consensus. Before making a similar edit, please keep in the mind the following:

• Reliable sources (such as Grove) recognise Handel's nationality as having a British component.
• Handel lived in England for almost fifty years.
• Handel legally became a British citizen (on 13 February 1727).
• Handel adopted English customs (for example he dropped the umlaut above the "a" when signing his own name).

Taken together, the above are more than sufficient reason for the consensus position of "German-British" in the article. Thanks for taking an interest in the Handel article. Cheers.
GFHandel ♬  22:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Through a portage

Alphasinus, once again, do you realise that this image doesn't illustrate Varangians? It is called originally "Волокут волоком" which means "Pulling through a portage", and it doesn't say the men illustrated are Varangians? Do you see that they wear traditional Russian and Slavic white clothes with national red ornaments? GreyHood ^Talk 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about traditional Slavic clothes, but it's quite obvious that those are viking ships. In addition, the practise of pulling ships through portages was very characteristic of how the varangians navigated their travels in Russia.

Firstly, Slavic ships looked very similar to Viking ships (or at least they do look in modern depictions). Secondly, not only Varangians, but obviously Slavs themselves and maybe other peoples navigated in the same way. Sorry, but your choice of this picture as a lead one is blatantly wrong. It is obviously much more Slavic than Varangian. I'm removing this picture from the article. GreyHood ^Talk 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that Slavs created similliar ships with dragon heads on the prow? In this book it says that many local people helped pull the boats.Encyclopedia of European People Rus Alphasinus (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dragon heads were not exclusive to Varangians or Vikings. According to one hypothesis, Slavs have early adopted the Varangian shipbuilding techniques, and basically the early Slavic ships, called ladya, were similar to longships in many ways. Slavs, however, navigated the East European rivers and the Black Sea even before the Varangians, starting from the 6th century, and Slavic/Varangian river-going ships were not so long as ocean-going western longships for the reason of maneuverability on the rivers. Here, for example, is an illustration of a Slavic military ladya with text from a book "История корябля" (History of ships). Also, remember that Slavs not only pulled ships for Varangians, but for themselves as well, and Slavs were a majority. GreyHood ^Talk 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The text just tells about that war as an example of ancient Russian navy expedition, the image is not necessarily related to it. And the text in general is about Slavic ships. GreyHood ^Talk 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the Anti-Normanist theories, they are not fringe and you know it perfectly, since you should have read the article on Rus' people in Britannica. And almost all written history of Varangians in ancient Rus' is the history of Rus' people. GreyHood ^Talk 14:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your quote from a certain Yuri Shilov about the Varangians being a band of Baltic Slavs is definately fringe. Alphasinus (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here are some pics Google gives on request "Славянская ладья" (Slavic ladya). As you may see most modern pictures and reconstructions have dragon heads. And it is quite a stereotypical feature of ancient Slavic culture. You seems to have a very poor background in Slavic history if you don't know it, sorry. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Varangians, or at least some of them, being Baltic Slavs is a little supported theory, but not fringe. Also, you should understand that we could speak of fringe theories only in case if the main, "non-fringe" theory has a very strong and unambiguous factual base and a vast majority of scholars support it. However, the data on the 8th-10th cc. is relatively scarce and not at all clear or conclusive, while Anti-Normanism is a centuries-long tradition in Russian historiography with many famous historians supporting it. Anti-Normanism has not been proved or disproved, and since it is a significant point of view it should be represented in the article (I agree, however that Scandinavian origin of Varangians is a primary hypothesis and should be given prominent place in the article). GreyHood ^Talk 14:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to be disputed in this version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Varangian Alphasinus (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? A sentence from your link: This legend served as the starting point for the creation of the antiscientific Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state, which appeared in the 18th century and has been discarded because of its flimsiness. GreyHood ^Talk 14:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What i mean is that even the Soviet encyclopedia writes that the Varangians are Norsemen... Alphasinus (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You both realize that this is a painting made by an artist? If you want to argue that it depicts either russians or varingians you would have to show that that is what the artist meant to depict.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do realise it very well. The name of the painting doesn't say anything about who it depicts, however since it is painting by Roerich it obviously depicts old Russian history (Slavic/Varangian/Rus' people without necessary distinction). However, the people depicted wear Slavic clothes, and the ships have no obvious ethnicity. Just typical ladyas which were built both by Slavs and Varangians at that time. GreyHood ^Talk 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Norman, you mean. Yes, because the article is very short, and they even don't explain the difference between Normanism and Anti-Normanism in detail. Note however the last sentence: In most Russian written monuments, “Varangians” as a general term for all Scandinavians was supplanted as of the second half of the 12th century by concrete names for different Scandinavian peoples— Svei (Swedes), Murmany (Norwegians)—and by the term Nemtsy, which was general for all western peoples. Up to the 18th century, the Baltic Sea was called the Varangian Sea, after the Varangians. Before the 12th century Russians didn't have any significant contacts with any non-Slavic or non-Finno-Ugric peoples from the west but Scandinavians. So the term Varangians denoted any people from over the Baltic (de-facto mostly Scandinavians), just as the term Nemtsy did it later. Also, remember that in Byzantium, from where the term "Varangian" might come to Rus', the Varangian guard was composed not only of Varangians, but also of Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples, which reflects the wider meaning of Varangians, which should be reflected in the article. GreyHood ^Talk 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The term Varangian is probably derived from the "Varangian Guard", and is more a word than the ethnonym of a dictinct people. In English, the term is synonymous with eastern Vikings. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Varangians Alphasinus (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, we should use the term correctly and reflect all relevant points of view. GreyHood ^Talk 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted me again, while not presenting any new arguments and perfectly knowing that sources alike that in the edit summary do not reflect the full and correct picture of who were Varangians (you do know of existence of other theories than Normanist and you do know that Varangian Guard was composed not only of Varangians). Also you have not proven that the picture you propose, which doesn't depict Varangians but Slavs, is worth for the lead and better than the picture which we know for sure depicts Varangians. How long will you continue this behavior? GreyHood ^Talk 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Normanist theory denies the Norse ethnicity of the Rus', not of the Varangians. It's obvious that the ships in the picture are varangian. The ethnicity of the members of the "Varangian Guard" should be adressed in that article. Alphasinus (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1) No, Anti-Normanist claims include Varangians being not Scandinavians at all or only partially (majority) Scandinavians. And you do know that the Rus people is the most renown group of Varangians.

2) No, these could be Slavic ships. I've demonstrated it to you (and finally, please, start doing some research of Slavic history to know the basic things before editing the articles related to Slavs). Moreover, it is more likely to suppose that to be Slavic ships, because if that were Varangian ships the picture would contain some Varangians. Anyway, the lead is supposed to illustrate Varangian people not ships, do you agree?

3) No, the Varangian Guard is a very prominent part of the history of Varangians and probably the namesake for the group. We couldn't ignore the basic facts related to the Varangian Guard in the article about Varangians.

Overall, I appreciate your attention to the topic and efforts to improve the article. But your knowledge of Varangians and related subjects is obviously unsufficient, and your attempts to push one POV instead of the full complex picture is inappropriate and against Wikipedia principles. GreyHood ^Talk 16:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just pushing what mainstream sources say. Doing the opposite is original research. Alphasinus (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your choice of the picture you just push what you like to push, ignoring any sources, arguments or logic. And you use tertiary sources like encyclopedias or dictionaries. My version is based on primary sources, like the Primary Chronicle, and secondary scientific studies. Those studies give much more complex figure of the topic (and by the way even your Britannica article about Rus' people shows this complex picture too). Using serious studies instead of encyclopedias and dictionaries is a normal practice for Wikipedia, and not OR. My bad that I still haven't translated more stuff from ru-wiki with all the references, but you already know, even from your sources, that this stuff exists and you know that it shouldn't be ignored. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So, will you stop your non-balanced and often highly dubious edits (like that with the Slavic picture) and erroneous edits (the Primary Chronicle doesn't say that Rus' people relocated from Scandinavia)? Or we should bring more people into resolving the problem, so as to avoid further edit warring? GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica Rus article both says that the Varangians are Vikings, and that the Primary Chronicle states that the Rus are a Norse people. Please read it thouroughly. Do you regard this also a "Slavic picture". I'm curious to know.

The article says that "Their origin and identity are much in dispute" and reflects different points of view in this dispute which is contrary to your approach. However this article is way too short, poor and simplistic.

The picture is called "Заморские гости". ("Guests from overseas" or "Merchants from overseas"). In the file description it is said that the picture is from the series called "Начало Руси. Славяне" ("The beginning of Rus'. Slavs". The Rus' means a land or a state in this context). This picture is often used to illustrate Varangians, because in Russia-centric context the name suggests the people illustrated are from overseas. However the ships and the people depicted might be Slavs as the name of the series suggests, or even some other people and not necessarily Scandinavians. I repeat again, that the depicted boats perfectly correspond to the common perception of ancient Russian (Slavic or Varangian) ships as they are depicted by multiple artists, shot in various movies or rebuilt in history reconstructions. Overall, this image may be used to depict Varangians (the name suggests so) but also may be used to depict Slavs if one wish so. It is not however so blatantly Slavic as the image you propose for the lead, and is even used in the lead of Russian Wikipedia article about Varangians, which is not bad in my view. However I'd prefer to use Rurik/Sineus/Truvor image ("Varangians") for the lead, at least until we create a separate article about the Invitation of the Varangians. Then we better use Roerich's "Guests from overseas" in the lead of Varangians and Vasnetsov's "Varangians" in the lead of the Invitation of the Varangians. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, don't you see the similliarities between the boat from the picture of Rurik's arrival and the other pictures? Alphasinus (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see, so what? Would you understand finally that Varangians and Slavs had a very close material culture, and that their boats were very similar? Vasnetsov's image is better than Roerichs because it depicts (and definitely depicts) Varangians in full view, showing their ships and their relationships with the Slavs. Also, the picture is called "Varangians" which corresponds to the name of the article. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your questions continue to show very poor background in Slavic topics, and your treatment and choice of sources (judging by multiple reverts of your edits in various articles by various users) seems not accurate enough. I again kindly ask you to agree to stop edit warring and to discuss your edits with other people instead of simply pushing your probably good faith, but too amateurish and insufficient views. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask you for the one last time to stop ignoring all my concerns stated here. Your choice of the picture is wrong and your sticking to it again and again after all my explanations is very strange, to say the least. Your version contains multiple faults your are aware of, and yet you push it again and again. GreyHood ^Talk 17:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've shown you over and over again that the English term Varangians refers to the vikings of Russia. see here Even the Soviet encyclopedia states that the Varangians are "Norman warriors". Why are you so obsessed with disaccosiate the Varangians with the Norsemen? Are you trying to imply that Rus were a mystical Slavic group of Varangians or what? Please stop doing original research. What do you really learn in Russian schools about this? Alphasinus (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm not doing original research, I'm just supporting the full spectre of views instead of one simplistic POV of yours which reflects a very poor knowledge of the subject.

2) I'm not trying to disaccosiate the Varangians with the Norsemen. I just oppose your POVish attempts to associate Varangians exclusively with the Norsemen.

3) You are perfectly aware that the term Varangians came to English from Greek and Russian, and in both cases the term had wider meaning than Eastern Vikings (non-Scandinavian peoples in the Varangian Guard, non-Scandinavian theories of Varangian origin or theories of wider application of the term). We can't ignore the history of the term, nor its usage in the countries which history is connected with Varangians.

4) You fail to recognize the logic that if Rus' people were the most prominent group of Varangians and the origin of Rus' people is disputed than the origin of Varangians is also disputed.

5) You stick to the Slavic picture despite I've shown it is much more Slavic than Varangian and that there are better pictures which for sure depict Varangians or at least are not so blatantly Slavic. GreyHood ^Talk 18:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1)That Varangians are "people from the "Baltic region is original research.

2)The word "Turkey" is both associated with a country and with a bird. But we don't merge the articles for that reason. Varangians in english is the word for Eastern vikings, as i've shown a number of times.See here

3)In general, the word Varangian means eastern vikings. A you might know, there is a page called Varangian (disambiguation) which i've tried to link to a number of times from the article, although you remove it every time you edit.

4)The people who dispute the origins of the Rus don't believe that the Rus were Varangians at all.

5)The present picture is better since the varangians are more than just the story of Rurik. The boats in what you call the "Slavic picture", are obviously Varangian, look at the similiarty with the boats from the invitation picture. It's the same. Alphasinus (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1) No. Russian wiki article contains multiple references to support the claim that Varangians are "people from the "Baltic region".

2) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and moreover, it is not a dictionary which gives only primary or limited meanings of words.

3) It makes sense to insert dab links at the top of the page when different items with the same name have similar level of significance. Varangians are much more significant than other items.

4) No, not necessarily. And my advice to you is to start drawing your knowledge of the topic from a wider range of sources than Britannica.

5) I've already explained that the boats on the picture are just typical boats (ladyas) of that era as depicted in modern times, and might be both Slavic and Varangian. You are ignoring my arguments and even the pictures which I've given to you as a proof. Claiming that the picture which shows Slavs with some boats ( which have no ethnicity) is better for the lead of Varangians than the picture which definitely show Varangians, their boats and their relationships with the Slavs is absurd. GreyHood ^Talk 11:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I presume you've been pushing original research on the Russian version as well then?

4) More sources

5) How does the picture from a random webpage prove anything? Why is that boat Slavic and not Scandinavian? Where is the archeological evidence? And why does a white robe proove that the people in the portage painting are Slavic? Alphasinus (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Assume good faith. I've never edited the Russian article and this is not OR.

4) Please start reading serious scholar works instead of the first google links you get. Unfortunately, though, most of the works I speak about are in Russian.

5) I've given you a link to a Russian book on ship history and a google link to multiple pictures called "Slavic ladya" with dragon heads. Stop waging war on reality. GreyHood ^Talk 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SameerJaved. Thank you. Gabbe (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nuremberg collage.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nuremberg collage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkish genocides listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Turkish genocides. Since you had some involvement with the Turkish genocides redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Norse people sidebar

Template:Norse people sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Old Norse sidebar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Assrape" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Assrape. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Assrape until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)