Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

My Talk Archives

User talk:Ermenrich/Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Grüß Gott Herr Doktor Ermenrich--falls Sie zureichende Zeit haben, ich wurde irgendeine Hilfe mit dem Odoacer-Artikel schätzen. Falls nicht, ich verstehe. Ich habe die Absicht stellenweise diesen Artikel zu verbessern. Wie schnell, das ist was anders...lach.--Obenritter (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber {U|Obenritter}}, ich habe im Moment allzu wenig Zeit, so dass ich mein Edieren hier eigentlich auf ein Minimum habe einschraenken müssen. Ich werde aber versuchen, dann und wann etwas zu helfen, da ich bei Odoaker zumindest schon einiges Vorwissen mitbringe und deswegen nicht, wie bei meinem letzten Projekt, dem Exodus, aus Zeit- und Wissensmangel werde aufgeben müssen!--Ermenrich (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nur falls Sie sich wundern, Obenritter - ich habe noch vor, diesen Artikel zu edieren, im Moment bin ich aber leider sehr beschaeftigt.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: Kein prob, da ich den Zeitmangel nur zu gut verstehe...trotzdem...mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

please look on the issue, I'd also tend to contest redirect, but more eyes see more: ([1]), ([2]), ([3]). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am really curios about your opinion (sorry for bother bothering you again, maybe you are busy)...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner KIENGIR, I saw this on my phone and meant to look into it on my laptop but forgot. It seems likely to me that it's the right move, I can only remember seeing Uar or Warhuns as a name for the Hephthalites in sort of strange pan-Turkic writings.--Ermenrich (talk)

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Ermenrich, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks *Treker! To you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For a really helpful article on Die Rabenschlacht. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alarichall!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ermenrich,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongoloid&action=history

^ Several users have been attempting to revert blatant original research at the "Mongoloid" article, which includes a section titled "Finns and Saami":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Finns_and_Sami

This section cites a bunch of papers about the Y-DNA haplogroup N1. Every genetic reference cited in this article lacks the word Mongoloid. None of them make any reference to the racial origins of haplogroup N. It's obviously original research; yet users Leppaberry-123 and DerekHistorian keep reverting it. Recently, an editor left a warning on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#January_2020

^ They went to great lengths to detail all the edits I made, but apparently didn't read the actual references in the article. Please help, this is another case of original research genetics gone wild on Wikipedia. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan201p, apologies for the delay, I've added my 2 cents on the issue. Generally I agree with you, obviously. It's better not to engage in edit-warring however, no matter how odious we find someone else's edits. They generally don't end well for either party and can result in unpleasant things like blocks or being having to defend oneself at ANI.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the discussion here. IIRC, Ronald Syme, important Classical authority & probably the foremost expert on Tacitus, accepts the passage in question as authentic. (I prefer to handle this by confronting him with the information he is demanding. If he refuses to acknowledge that Syme is enough of a RS on this topic, then it's off to WP:AN/I; I don't feel its my place to expand the edit ban called for here.) However, I'm at work at the moment & my copy of Syme's Tacitus is at home, & I won't be able to access it until later after I go thru voir dire this afternoon for jury duty. (I'd shut down the discussion this minute if I could trust my memory on this book, but I too often misremember crucial details like this.) So encourage everyone to hold their peace until then. And if I don't respond with a cite from Syme's book within 15 hours of this message, feel free to ping me with a reminder that I was going to do this. -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Llywrch, I'll just hold off replying to him until you do that. I appreciate you looking into the matter. I thought it was pretty not a tban violation, but asking seemed worthwhile before things got out of hand.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, & while I could plausibly extend that ruling to include it, IMHO doing so would only add fuel to the fire. Considering that the passage under discussion is only a throw-away comment by Tacitus (I doubt he knew much & cared less about Jesus & Christianity), these words really have led to a surprising amount of ink spilled over the years! -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. On second thought, Tacitus probably knew something about Christianity -- although not much. He was proconsul of Asia in 112/113, which at the time was a hotbed of Christianity. (Our first external reports of that religion -- Pliny's letter to Trajan, a rescript from Hadrian -- date to that place & time, which was contemporary with the writing of the Annales.) But his knowledge about that faith probably did not extend beyond what he wrote: a superstitious lower-class group who worshiped a criminal that died in the most humiliating way possible -- crucifixion -- & were mixed up in chronic social unrest that occupied too much of his time as governor! Nevertheless, had he known the result of this one example of his countless acidic asides in his narrative, I bet he would have been surprised. -- llywrch (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:all of Paul's posts at your talk page - sorry for dragging you into this Llywrch. I do think the fact that Paul can't even seem to agree what it is we're debating is fairly symptomatic of why it's not very helpful to have him commenting on this subject though.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you really want to feel bad, had you voted for me at the last ArbCom election & I had won election, I'd be subjected to lots & lots of messages like that daily. But if you had not voted for, you spared me from that fate & shouldn't feel bad at all. So it all works out. ;-) llywrch (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd kindly ask your opinion about two issues:

The first is here ([4]]), you'll recall the subject similarly as discussed earlier, if you'll see the mother article, while the other is at the talk of the The Camp of the Saints. Go ahead in case. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Oh brother. I'll try to have a look at this when I can.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR, I've simply removed the Schieder quote. The source uses it as an example of Germans downplaying their own atrocities, see [5]. As far as "Camp of the Saints", I'd say consensus is for labeling it as racist. I don't really know anything about it.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ermenrich, As you deduce from my posts at the Teahouse, I am prepared to start an edit war in order to get a decision from wiki authority. (However, I would not appear in this war, because I have enough students who would be ready for this job.) But do we actually need an edit war? Any attentive reader of Badenhausen's article would conclude the superfluousness of Ritter's basic position at hand of elder German scholarship, as I have pointed out this in the German Thidrekssaga article. We know that this does not contradict the prevailing opinion even of the eminent William J. Pfaff who considered Thidreks's Bern not only in Italy but also at the northern Verona-Bonn with regard to earlier legendary northern accounts. Furthermore, it is obvious that Badenhausen follows not Ritter, but only Kemp Malone's and some elder German scholarship's identification of the historical prototype of Thidrek (cf. the German article), since we also know that his milieu cannot be identical with those apparently Italian drawn Dietrichs provided by MHG poetry. I was told that Badenhausen's article has some hundred hits per week, that is much more than the German wiki article. I have no idea of the final wiki decision or a consensual policy that allows a link to Badenhausen's article, but I can assure you that he generally removes obsolete contextual statements in its update history as well as in the text.--Tympanus (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tympanus, Badenhausen is extremely fringe. He and his website have no place on Wikipedia, nor do any of the self-published journals in his Dietrich-von-Bern-truther movement. If you edit war, you will be blocked from editing. You appear to be a wp:single purpose account that only exists to promote Rolf Badenhausen.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go straight to ANI now. This is totally unacceptable. Meanwhile I'll protect the pages. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

this edit concerns me ([6]), however, they discussed in talk, but I have the fear like such agreements many "disliked" theory may be POV-ed as calling it fringe in the beginning in the lead...opinion? (KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, as far as I know the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe, it's promoted primarily by Hindu nationalists.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Abend Ermenrich! Vielleicht kannst Du mir helfen. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, den Artikel Šaip Kamberi [[7]] wieder zurück zu holen. Es gab seinerzeit ein Missverständnis zwischen Biographie und Autobiographie. Liebe Grüße--Špajdelj (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Špajdelj, am besten solltest du den Anweisungen bei WP:REFUND/G13 folgen. Ich denke, dass wuerde das Problem loesen.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

please look on and overview the whole article regarding the recent edits as well, for neutrality especially. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, I'll have a look when I can. Could you be more specific about which recent edits? This isn't a subject I'm very knowledgeable about.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! Well, I wish to be sure the recurrent linking to Armenians is not POV or fringe, since the ancient Urartu is linked infact to Hurrians where as well Assyrians, Cimmerians etc. occured later. Recently also some genetic studies have been added in order to support (?) Armenian heritage, link, ancestry (?), just because later the territory served for Armenians and their regard Urartu as their predecessor...seems like...worth to check and look on it thoroughly...(KIENGIR (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR your suspicions here are well founded. Armenian authors too have been critical of this trend. Can give links/quotes if you want. --Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already quoted Anchabadze and Abramanian on the matter [[8]] (disregard the "Alarodian" part of my comment -- that was before I read more recent literature on the issue which also challenged that)--Calthinus (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]