User talk:Blue Branson

Welcome!

Hello, Blue Branson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Aeolians. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Izzat Kutebar (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arcadian League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias (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) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Pelasgians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Proto-Greek language

@Blue Branson: Can you please give me a better reason as to your recent edits on the Proto-Greek language article? How does "Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime during the Bronze Age" better than "Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime during the Early Bronze Age" or even "Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime during the Early Helladic II/III"? The Bronze Age spans a period that exceeds two millennia, namely from approximately 3300 BCE to 1100 BCE. As also explained later in the article, the majority of Indo-Europeanists view the establishment of Proto-Greek speakers in Greece any time around or after the beginning of the third millennium BCE, which would translate to Early Bronze Age. The introduction as it is now doesn't follow WP:MOSLEAD. Last, can you please explain to me how is the rv on "any" seen here, 1, an improvement? Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bronze Age" as a term is more objective than "Early Helladic II/III" (EHII/III) since the EHII/III period for the advent of the Proto-Greeks into prehistoric Greece has been rendered untenable by more recent scholarship on Helladic culture. Still, there are scholars who incorrectly believe that Proto-Greek speakers first entered the Aegean after EHII/III (e.g., 1900 BC per Drews) while other scholars accurately find that said speakers arrived long before EHII/III (e.g., 3200 BC per Coleman). So to account for such widely differing scholarly views, a broad identifier is necessary so as to keep the entry encyclopaedically neutral. Yet, there is the possibility for readers to incorrectly assume from reading the entry's main paragraph that Proto-Greek speakers first arrived in Greece during the Mycenaean period (which they didn't). Therefore, you are justified in adding the adjective "Early" to "Bronze Age" in both the main paragraph and the infobox and nothing more. And as for the revert on "any", the letter "a" is capitalized on page 51 of Whittaker's publication and so when quoting a source that is not part of the beginning of your own sentence, you use brackets and insert the same letter in lower-case. Blue Branson (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't focus on Early Helladic II/III so much, since i could also have suggested Early Helladic plainly which would be synonymous to Early Bronze Age and thus consider scholars who share an earlier date as well. That was my main issue, namely that the term "Bronze Age" is so broad that as you pointed out some readers might incorrectly assume a much later arrival than what scholars consider to be the case. Furthermore, even though it wasn't an entry of yours do you have any suggestions for this quote, "and afterwards diversified into what would later become known as Mycenaean Greek."? I don't know if you know, but Mycenaean Greek is essentially an early form of Arcado-Cypriot Greek (Achaean proper); could be seen as proto-Arcado-Cypriot. Many people out there, even some scholars who are unfamiliar with Greek dialectogenesis, wrongly assume that just because Mycenaean Greek (through Linear B) is the earliest attested form of the Greek language, that it also happens to be some kind of proto-Greek. Totally wrong, and happens to leave out the rest of the Greek branches such as Doric. Wouldn't be better if this was taken out, since the very prior sentence already mentions the numerous Greek dialects that evolved from Proto-Greek?

As for the [a]ny and its proper transcription, i wasn't aware of that, thanks for letting me know. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Early Helladic" as a term is perhaps too technical for readers who are unfamiliar with the secondary literature on Helladic culture. Therefore, it is best to stick to "Early Bronze Age" regardless if it is semantically synonymous with the term "Early Helladic" or historically synonymous with the Early Helladic period. And though I agree that Mycenaean Greek is not Proto-Greek, mention of linguistic diversification should not be removed from the main paragraph. As a suggestion, you can replace the phrase "diversified into what would later become known as Mycenaean Greek" with the phrase "diversified into the aforementioned varieties of Greek" so as to avoid the problems you pointed out without removing from the main paragraph any specific mention of linguistic diversification. Blue Branson (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. "Early Bronze Age" it is then. But i still disagree on the diversification part. I mean, the diversification of proto-Greek is already mentioned in the first sentence, namely as it is now it is stated two times, and especially the second as it mentions Mycenaean by its own it gives the wrong impression that Mycenaean Greek was some kind of intermediary stage between proto-Greek and the later Classical dialects (Doric, Achaean, Aeolic, Ionic, etc.). I would still urge you to reconsider this. For example, right now it is as follows, "The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the Indo-European language which was the last common ancestor of all varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric, Ancient Macedonian and Arcadocypriot) and, ultimately, Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek together with its variants. Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime during the Bronze Age and afterwards diversified into what would later become known as Mycenaean Greek.". Doric speakers for example, weren't part of either the Mycenaean civilization or even the linguistic division Mycenaean belonged to. During that Middle/Late Bronze Age period they were living further to the north on the Pindus mountain range and its surrounding regions, namely the proto-Greek region more or less. Furthermore, take note that in these ancient Greek classifications, there is also the suggested division of a northern and a southern grouping, with distinct linguistic elements. Namely, Doric and Aeolic make up the northern group, while Linear B (Mycenaean), Arcadocypriot, and Attic-Ionic the southern group. Read these few small segments by Jonathan M. Hall, Roger D. Woodard, Geoffrey Horrocks and Holt N. Parker.

https://i.ibb.co/XL7mZ3n/risch-porzig.png

https://i.ibb.co/XtWM2bx/porzig-risch1.png

https://i.ibb.co/pbS2ffz/porzig-risch2.png

https://i.ibb.co/nsY25rB/parker.png

Also, this is an interesting read as well, Antonín Bartoněk (1972). What do you think? Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blue Branson. Any edit which tries to place the Proto-Greek language in the Balkans in a period before 2200 BCE (Early Helladic III) at the earliest is WP:FRINGE. The community has completely rejected such attempts (Talk:Proto-Greek_language#Supposed Proto-Greek in 1200 BC).--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993. Your diligence with respect to submitting reliable sources to support your case is commendable. But the entry's main paragraph currently mentions linguistic diversification that, I think, addresses (or at least bypasses) the issues you have lucidly raised. In other words, linguistic diversification is mentioned in the main paragraph without any emphasis placed on any one dialect of Greek (be it Mycenaean or Doric). Blue Branson (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber. Your bullying me is not welcome and your invoking the "community" to justify your bullying is also not welcome. There is absolutely nothing fringe about the term "Early Bronze Age" since it accounts for all (or at least most) scholarly views in the entry that are supported by reliable mainstream sources. So your entire attack is based on an original misinterpretation of my intentions and therefore baseless. Blue Branson (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you understand what I'm trying to explain and I'm not referring to you in any way, shape or form. The Early Helladic is never discussed as the "Early Helladic" but as a specific period such as EHI/II/III(a/b). Periodization reflects differences in material culture. The diversification of Proto-Indo-European began ca. 2500 BCE and the "dialect" which became the Proto-Greek language entered the Greek peninsula around ca. 2200 BCE (Early Helladic III) at the earliest. A possible appearance of Proto-Greek or any IE language in the Balkans in the Early Bronze Age is not a subject of discussion. The editors in the discussion which I've asked you to read have explored many of these questions and there is a list of bibliography in that discussion which will help you explore some issues. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically targeting my good-faith edit contribution as "fringe" only to then pivot to the position of "I'm misunderstood/I wasn't targeting you" is a typical tactic bullies use to keep intact whatever "status quo ante" happens to be sacred to them. But let's move on. Your focus on Helladic periodization and Proto-Indo-European diversification represents an original synthesis of archaeological and linguistic information that you claim constitutes some immutable scholarly consensus bordering on absolute truth. In reality, however, the entire enterprise about when Proto-Greek speakers diverged from the Proto-Indo-European language family is based on linguistic paleontology, glottochronology or, at the very least, linguistic reconstructions of existing languages (i.e., Mycenaean Greek) that are speculative at best (i.e., no Proto-Greek or PIE tablets discovered and/or deciphered so far). If anything, there are significant distinctions between and within scholarly disciplines focused on the Indo-European Question. Even different Indo-Europeanists who support the Kurgan hypothesis have radically different views about when the first speakers of Greek arrived in prehistoric Greece during the Bronze Age (e.g., Drews = c. 1900 BC vs. Coleman = c. 3200 BC). As for the entry's talkpage discussion you mentioned, it is rife with users ganging up on Alexikoua (not that I agree with his/her positions) while shifting the goal-posts where archaeology is invoked to support linguistic models and then rejected in favor of language exclusively when archaeological data/assessments happen to challenge said models. Sadly, the discussion was anything but a discussion so color me unimpressed if you think that a "community consensus" based on missing the point about speakers of proto-languages means anything (the point, naturally, is that proto-languages are products of academic speculation until proof shows otherwise). At this point, you and whoever happens to be in your "consensus posse" have nothing to lose by leaving the article alone since the term "Early Bronze Age" was the product of everyone's favorite acronym, BRD, that summarily and broadly encapsulates all (or at least most) scholarly views in the entry as an encyclopedia should. Blue Branson (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of IE languages in the Balkans in 3,200 BCE is not part of the range which bibliography discusses. In fact, it goes against everything that we've learnt in the past 30 years. I'll take the article to the stable version and if you wish to discuss about the possibility of Proto-Greek in 3,200 BCE in the Greek peninsula you'll have to use the article's talkpage or even better start a process called WP:RFC. On wikipedia, we decide changes via consensus building, not via edit-warring. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote because you have clearly missed the mark: A) the term "Early Bronze Age" does not exclusively mean "3,200 BC" (your anti-Coleman bias prevents you from seeing the simple fact that the term represents the range that is the "third millennium B.C." and not a specific point on the range), B) invoking the past 30 years of scholarship (which scholarship?) does not render any body of knowledge as beyond reproach given that scholarly critiques of past scholarship is part of the history of scholarship, C) your invoking bureaucracy and using passive-aggressive threats to revert my good-faith edit contributions means that you lost the argument. Blue Branson (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is here to lose or win any argument. You're mixing current bibliography with older bibliography and you're not relying on linguistic research to make an argument about language. Coleman (2000) has been discussed at the talkpage, which I again ask you to read because that will help you understand where we stand. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did you and your "consensus posse" get established in the first place if not by "winning" arguments and/or achieving "victory" by uncritically taking virtually the same POV-position on the entry's talkpage and collectively claiming that it perfectly represents bleeding-edge scholarship? But if "[n]obody is here to lose or win any argument", then why did you go out of your way to revert all of my good-faith edit contributions using a battle strategy? Not only did you suddenly invoke the law (i.e., "consensus", "3RR") when things weren't going your way, you even went so far as to submit very weak rationales for condescendingly dismissing my good-faith edits via: A) a pseudo-dilemma involving "older" versus "newer" bibliography (how old exactly is old?), and B) a false framework where Coleman's scholarship is "bad" and Anthony's scholarship is "good". Starting with the former "rationale", it makes no sense since users cannot take an original position in deciding what is or is not academically "old" (except in very extreme circumstances) and readers can see for themselves which scholarship is chronologically recent (also, your opposition to "older" scholarship out of fear of "mixing" is inconsistent since the entry's status quo ante contains Drews's estimate, which other scholars have severely criticized for being historically inaccurate and outdated). As for the latter "rationale", it too makes no sense because it falsely implies that Coleman's estimate, published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies of all places, is the dominant position in the entry when it never was (readers deserve to know about important scholarly positions provided that they are reliably sourced). And as for the "linguistic research" (which linguistic research?), it is speculative when dealing with proto-languages and by no means does it represent all views on the subject of the Proto-Greek language (e.g., the fact that Paul Heggarty exists renders both your "rationales" worthless since he has made many contributions to linguistic research and his bibliography is quite contemporary). Of course, a subject involving any proto-language and its carriers allows for other sources of scholarly work to be included into the entry and not just sources from the discipline of linguistics (still, the whole enterprise involving proto-languages is rife with hazards). Lastly, the entry's status quo ante that you uncritically defend fails to take into consideration historical facts about the development of various estimates in 20th-century scholarship surrounding the entry of the first speakers of Greek into prehistoric Greece. Blue Branson (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the coming of Proto-Greek to the late 4th millennium BC is simply improbable from a linguistic point of view. This would imply that Proto-Greek had been 'separated' from other non-Balkan IE languages for at least 2,000 years (!) before the earliest attestation of a Greek dialect (Mycenaean), whereas the comparison with the contemporary Vedic Sanskrit language shows that it cannot be the case. Alcaios (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You're at 3RR at Proto-Greek language. It's a friendly notice that now it's time to go to the talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And so continues your battle strategy. See you at the talkpage. Blue Branson (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Fut.Perf. –☼ 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Blue Branson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let me guess, there is a registry of racial/behavioral profiles and I suddenly "fit" one of them. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a sockpuppet of whoever the user who blocked me from editing thinks or claims I am. And there's no basis for the false accusation of sockpuppetry because: A) this account is my first account and was never a threat to the encyclopaedia, B) made solid good-faith edit contributions despite being cyberbullied, C) look forward to making more good-faith edit contributions that Wikipedia and its readers deserve to see. So please unblock me because Wikipedia is above "punishing" good-faith editors while allowing bad-faith editors free reign. Blue Branson (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No one knows what race you are, and your race is not relevant insofar as being a Wikipedia contributor. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to end disruption. Based on what I have seen, I would concur with the blocking admin that you are evading a block. If that's true, edits by blocked users are not allowed to stand, as that would defeat the purpose of the block. If you aren't a sock, you will need to do more than just say you aren't a sock, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was going to report this account as a sock of Deucalionite but Fut.Perf. was faster and did the block. I would suggest to the socking master to move on and give their contribution somewhere else. After all, Wikipedia is not the only place that welcomes volunteer work. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]