Urselius

Hi, I was interested by your point that "Not that long ago, brooch and ceramic typology was considered proof positive of ethnic distinctness and the settlements in Britain were linked to specific Continental geographical origins on this basis alone. Ancient DNA has definitively shown that some of the people buried with early Anglo-Saxon grave goods were of local British origins, making brooch and ceramic typology redundant as an indicator of ethnicity." at the AS settlement talk. Do you have a good ref for that? I'd like to add re the brooches to the "metalwork" section of Anglo-Saxon art. From a generous preview of Martin, Toby F., The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England, 2015, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2015, ISBN 1843839938, 9781843839934, google books, he rejects simplistic older views, but seems by no means ready to completely let go of an "Anglian" identity being part of the broochs' meaning. Is this book well thought-of, do you know? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod:Hi, I haven't seen the Martin book, but I think brooch typology is still relevant to cultural identity and cultural contacts. I don't have any particular sources for brooch typology being invalidated by ancient DNA work, but I think Schiffels, S. et al. (2016) makes the general point that material culture (grave goods) and genetics are unrelated in early Anglo-Saxon burials. I made the point about brooches because it has always struck me that the claims made for 'different minor variations in brooch form being used to trace back populations in Britain to very specific Continental populations' seemed specious in the light of other evidence - even before ancient DNA technology. The adventus was not a tribal incursion like those of the Burgundians, Vandals etc., it was much more of a 'private enterprise' of separate warbands, which sometimes co-operated with each other. That each warband and their associated peasants in areas that were later Anglian came originally from Angeln I think highly unlikely. Urselius (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you reverted my entire edit on Lampião with the edit summary: Written in British English as per talk page. While I appreciate you for improving the page, the only thing I noticed I did wrong was changing neighbours to neighbors. Not sure if you noticed that I also corrected the incorrect parameter |Cause of death= used on the infobox (as it's showing in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters), removed overlinks on countries, and fixed the dashes. IAre those part of the "British English" as well? Cause if not I would like to restore those correct edits, please? Thanks. - SUBWAY 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Subwaymuncher: Of course. I tend to react by reversion when I see that an editor has not checked the talk page for information on the article. Perhaps a harsh measure. Urselius (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Merhaba, resimle alakalı sizle konuşmak istiyorum. Wikipedi'de yeniyim. Konuyla alakalı resmin tam olarak lisansına ulaşabileceğimi sanmıyorum çünkü bu resim "İstanbul Askeri Müze" ve bazı farklı sergilerde gösterime sunulmuştur. Herhangi bir telif hakkına ulaşamıyoruz. Yardımcı olurmusunuz? Ulpionz (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I want to talk to you with the picture. I'm new to Wikipedi. I do not think I can reach the full license of the painting with the subject because this painting has been shown in the "Istanbul Military Museum" and some other exhibitions. We cannot access any copyrights. Could you help? Ulpionz (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I want to talk to you with the picture. I'm new to Wikipedi. I do not think I can reach the full license of the painting with the subject because this painting has been shown in the "Istanbul Military Museum" and some other exhibitions. We cannot access any copyrights. Could you help? Ulpionz (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ulpionz:I am not the best person to ask. It depends on the age of the painting and copyright law in different jurisdictions, particularly the USA. If the painting is over 100 years old there would be little problem. Less than that, then there will probably be some copyright on the image. Being on public display, or in a publication, does not entitle use on Wikimedia. I would recommend asking for advice on Wikimedia itself, rather than Wikipedia, and look at the copyright disclaimers used on similar images on Wikimedia. Urselius (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I altered the spelling of focussed in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain as the article already had three instances of focused. I have checked online to see which is more common in the U.K. and it seems to be focused, which is listed first by Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries.

Wiktionary says: "The spellings focusses, focussing, focussed are more common in Commonwealth English than in American English, but in both varieties they are less common than the spellings focuses, focusing, focused", which suggests that focused is preferred in British English.

I still prefer focused, but as both are acceptable, could you amend either focus or focussed so the spelling is consistent? TSventon (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i think you dont understand what i saying. I say the given source states it was a decisive victory for the seljuks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Then say that that particular source says so. The use of the word decisive in a Wikipedia infobox is quite controversial and is only really used when there are no further major armed clashes in a war. 'Decisive' does not mean the same as 'a major victory' or a 'very one-sided battle', it means that it decided the outcome of a war. Doryleum stopped the German Crusaders from overrunning the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, or taking Konya, but that was not the major aim of the Crusaders, their major aim was to get to Syria to bolster the Crusader States after the loss of Edessa. Doryleum did not stop the Crusaders from getting to Syria, it was not decisive in the way this word is used in Wikipedia. You could say somewhere in the article, not in that part of the infobox that gives the result, that "Doryleum was decisive in preserving the Sultanate of Rum". That would be fine. Please sign all comments with four '~' symbols. Urselius (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

A very small part of the Germans were able to reach Damascus, very few of the Damascus besiegers were German. This battle has already had quite an impact on the outcome. Also, can you change the Analysis of the fate of named participants suggest a casualty rate of 63% at most to See the Aftermath and estimation of crusader losses section. Because I have read about this battle from many sources, and they all say that the loss of the Germans is 18,000. This text looks sided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please sign your comments. If there were no doubts about the casualty figures then Phillips, in 'Phillips, J. (2008) The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom, Yale University Press', would not have gone to the trouble of trying to estimate casualties from contemporary records of named German Crusaders. Finding these records was not a trivial piece of historical research. Professional historians do not undertake such arduous work, if they do not have to. Nicolle does not mention any casualty figures at all. This is conclusive evidence that the figure you espouse is not considered to be accurate or definitive by a number of scholars who have written books specifically about the Second Crusade. Whatever your or my opinion is about this is totally irrelevant, because Wikipedia always has to reflect the available scholarship. If the scholarship is divided on any point, then both opinions have to be given equal weight in a Wkipedia article. This is non-negotiable. It is you who is trying to present a one-sided view, and it is I trying my hardest, against a storm of undeserved invective and lack of good faith, to reflect the balance of relevant scholarship. This can be taken to various forms of Wikipedia arbitration, if you wish. Urselius (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this; I wasn't aware of the background (I assumed the b&w version was a from a sketch). Where can I read more? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pigsonthewing:A description of the painting and the overpainting is in the Gage and Stearn history. I'm not entirely sure what pages, as my copy is in a box in the loft. The lady in the right foreground and her husband in the rear right background were painted out, some sort of society infighting and the settling of scores, I recall. Gage A.T. and Stearn W.T. (1988) A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London, Linnean Society of London. Urselius (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing this kind of manipulation. Unfortunately User:Iaof2017 avoids any kind of discussion. He has been recently blocked due to large scale edit warring, but this pattern of disruption has reached a new level (combination of no discussion-endless revert-warring ).Alexikoua (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Alexikoua:I thought it might be part of a pattern of disruptive editing, it is often the case. Urselius (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good day, I have noticed that you undid two of my recent edits under MOS:TENSE. Could you please clarify what was wrong with my edits? As far as I can tell, the edits conform with the guideline, as, though historical, the helmets still meaningfully exist, either as historical artifacts or replicas.

203.164.32.167 (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@203.164.32.167:The text mentions them as 'combat helmets'or 'military helmets', which was their function, they are no longer used as combat helmets by any military force. Their use is most definitely in the past. Examples still exist, but as museum pieces, not as 'combat helmets'. As they were not created as museum exhibits, their modern existence must be subsidiary, tense-wise, to their past functional existence. Urselius (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. I will be sure to take note of such wording in the future when making MOS:TENSE corrections to avoid such mistakes again.

203.164.32.167 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit warring. [1] half of the pictures says Ertugrul Ghazi, half others says Mimar Sinar. No idea what your reasoning is. "Better than nothing" is not a good reasoning. Definetely not a good way to build a proper encyclopedia. Beshogur (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. And please, instead of ignoring the regular "bold, revert, discuss" process, take part in the discussion at WT:MILHIST. Dragovit 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dragovit: You do not appear to recognise the difference between edit warring and restoring an article to its original state whilst an edit that has been challenged is being actively discussed; the aim of discussion is to arrive at a consensus between interested editors about the usefulness, or otherwise, of the edit or edits in question. Urselius (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Urselius! I am writing you because you have already interacted with the user Hunan201p and his controversial and WP:POV based notorious edit style related to race and blonde hair at Proto-Indo-Europeans, regarding the genetic section, where he had an edit war with you, unti he got blocked for three months. Now he is doing the same on Yamnaya culture and threats other users with "banning" them. Could you please take a look and stop his agenda based edits. Thank you in advance for your help!213.162.73.204 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Taking also into account WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS as well as WP:Weight, the whole section should be removed, as it remains to controversial to make bold claims about millions of people. Also pinging user:Rsk6400 to comment.213.162.73.204 (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted for the moment, but the editor in question is persistent. He uses tentative or hedged statements in the literature and exaggerates them for his own agenda. However the Haak paper, in Nature, which started this whole genetics of the Yamnaya does state that they had a majority of dark eye alleles and had skin that was lighter than the majority of WHG, but darker than that of most modern Europeans. Urselius (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Urselius,

Wanted to make you aware of the new Roman and Byzantine emperors WikiProject under development, as you've made some impressive edits to the area, which we are very grateful for. Thank you, regardless! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Iazyges: Thanks for the 'heads up'. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Urselius, I'd like to invite you to express your opinions on the deletion decision Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21, because I saw you comments on the administrator's Talk page for "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation". We are now appealing for deletion decision. Hope this time, the invitation is just in time. Minimumbias (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I should probably let you known that I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It was in regard to the DRV. I guess I could have pinged in there also. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lightburst: Not a problem. I'm a bit of a loose cannon on Wikipedia; I mostly just write stuff and don't give a tinker's cuss for Wikipedia processes, also I have a great deal of distain for guidelines that make no sense to me. Urselius (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Your recent edit to The Hathershaw College appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your response on my Talk page, and your edit summary. I'm content to leave David Richards (television director) in The Hathershaw College#Notable former pupils now that you have added him back in, but didn't want to look like I was ignoring your message. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Urselius. Thank you for creating David Petley. User:Ovinus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Easily passes WP:NPROF#C1 according to Google Scholar citation counts. Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ovinus}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ovinus (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you reverted my edit on the Turkish general "Monolugh". The Alexiad records "μονόλυκος" as a Turkish general, which literally transliterates to "Monolykos". I do not see a good reason to transliterate the Greek μονόλυκος to Manalugh, as it has no meaning in this form and doesn't stick to the original text. The Greek word may be a calque from an old totemic Turkish name, a bastardization of a Turkic name that sounded similar to "Monolykos", or a title for Gumushtegin, the son of Shahanshah Danishmend. To add to the latter theory, the title is perhaps the same demonizing title Demosthenes applied to Alexander centuries before, not unthinkable in the atticizing texts of Anna Komnene. ~ Gibby01 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gibby01: Hi, there is an established history of Byzantine Greek writers Hellenising foreign names, Urselius for Roussel (Roussel de Bailleul) for example. This is known to extend to Turkic names, Prosouch for Borsuq etc. Perhaps Sewter had information supporting Manalugh being the original form of the name? However, all this is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes, as a published work trumps all opinion expressed by editors. In the translation of the Alexiad, Sewter uses the name 'Manalugh' and, unless there is good quality published matter available that challenges his usage, it has to stand. If this were the Greek language Wikipedia it would be, arguably, a different matter. I have just checked, and The Cambridge Medieval History uses the name 'Manalugh'; that is a fairly definitive sanction for it. Urselius (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Apologies, on the first line I meant to write "Manalugh" instead of "Monolugh" of course.)

There is indeed a tradition of Hellenizing Turkic names, but I haven't found any evidence that this is the case with Monolykos. I haven't been able to get a copy of Sewter's work, but I doubt he explains himself as Kaldellis doesn't either. I am simply suggesting we stick to the source material.

Here's similar paper you can find online that uses a baseless transliteration:

Monoluğ: (99+) Winter in the Land of Rum: Komnenian Defenses Against the Turks in Western Anatolia | Humberto DeLuigi - Academia.edu

Some books and papers use the wrong ending "-es" as in "Monolykes" for the Greek μονόλυκος, causing confusion, in my opinion because of lack of good standardization:

A Chronology of the Byzantine Empire - T. Venning, J. Harris - Google Boeken

The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to ... - Claude Cahen - Google Boeken

This paper mentions the possibility of a Greek name or title:

https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjSteucmdT8AhWYgv0HHXPlBzAQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etd.ceu.edu%2F2017%2Fshlyakhtin_roman.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04IY-kvyU5xc7_nm_YiZJD

"Kaldellis in his translation calls him 'Manalough.' I stick to the Byzantine version of the name, because I am not sure that 'Manalugh' is correct reconstruction of the Turkic name. See Alexiad, tr. Sewter-Frankopan,"

~ Gibby01 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gibby01: Standardising nomenclature and usage is a bit beyond the remit of Wikipedia editors. Sewter is the definitive English translation of the Alexiad, as such he forms a 'secondary source' and secondary sources are greatly preferred in Wikipedia over primary sources - such as the original Greek version. This is because the interpretation of primary sources by editors can lead to distortions, agenda pushing etc. 'Manalugh', and minor spelling deviations from this, is sufficiently supported by secondary sources to remain the preferred usage on Wikipedia. However, if you wish to add the original Greek, its Latin alphabet equivalent and its putative meaning as a footnote to the first occurrence of the name, in any article, that would be fine. It is the replacement that cannot be supported by Wikipedia usage and rules. Urselius (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the correction. Your quick response implies you get alerted to changes. May I ask what service you use? 70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

or what type of service in case naming one would be considered advvertising. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just watchlist on Wikipedia. Urselius (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

here’s the link I was trying to provide: Talk:Vasili III of Russia#Requested move 6 May 2023. Okiyo9228 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and the same for you! Urselius (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your assistance on Capture of USS Chesapeake. I want to insert another image, but I'm going to read up on image formatting before I do any more. The portrait of Broke was at the bottom before I started; since the end of 2021 at least. I'll try to crop it for a better portrait since I have a similar need in other articles. Humpster (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here is the passage on WP:INFOBOXES that I am referencing. WP:INFOBOXES#Dynamic_templates. "Readers greatly outnumber editors The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks, or "Unknown"s present an unprofessional appearance." Including "date unknown" as the birth date violates this guideline. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@UmbrellaTheLeef: It merely says 'looks unprofessional', that does not constitute a definite ban. Also, who is 'professional' on Wikipedia? Certainly not me, I have received no payment for any of the many articles I have created. Urselius (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noticed the revert you made on the article for Michael III, I'm not here to argue about it but to say that you might want to think about what tone you use when interacting with others.

The first bit where you state "No you did not" in response to my edit summary "Improved grammar." instead of simply summarizing the reason for the revert feels needlessly antagonistic. MeadeIndeed (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MeadeIndeed: I had a stroke (basal ganglion infarction) last month and my abilities to dissimulate or conciliate are very curtailed, and small things, like people correcting my grammar unnecessarily, irritate me to a much greater extent than previously. I am also getting very little sleep, largely due to the medication. Urselius (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Urselius,

Please avoid ad hominem your comments.

This paragraph currently contains an original conclusion that is different from what is explicitly stated in the conclusion of the study.

If there is a different study with a different conclusion, feel free to add it. 021120x (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see no evidence of any ad hominem attack.

Hi Urselius - You explained your edit (diff) with: "Autism is not classed as a mental or psychological disorder or illness. It is a neurodevelopmental condition with largely genetic origins, no known psychological factor shown to cause autism."

It actually is classed as a mental illness (disorder, disease), as evidenced by its inclusion in the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

However, I am personally fine with "developmental disorder" so I did nothing about your edit. But others might object so I wanted you to know their likely reasoning.

Cheers! ~ Mark Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has been argued that, as autism has a neurological basis, it is thus not a mental disorder in the way psychosis and paranoia are. The former results from atypical neural anatomy, while the latter two are the products of typical neural anatomy behaving in an atypical manner. Urselius (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Almost all mental disorders have neurodevelopmental origins, manifesting genetic influences, growth trajectories, and multiple domains of environmental influences that interact with development"

Cuthbert BN. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Progress and Potential. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2022;31(2):107-114. doi:10.1177/09637214211051363

---

See also:

Diathesis–stress model

Biopsychosocial model

---

"[RDoC] is intended to provide a structure that places equal weight on behavioral functions and upon neural circuits and their constituent elements - that is, to be an integrative model rather than one based primarily on either behavior or neuroscience."

Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2013;11:126. Published 2013 May 14. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 10:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is a narrowly neurological viewpoint, many psychiatrists and psychologists would not agree with it. If it were the whole truth, talking therapies would not work in any circumstances and lots of clinicians would be out of a job. Urselius (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was actually trying to argue the same point. What I like about Cuthbert's articles is that he tries to help readers understand that the RDoC research agenda includes psychosocial factors, and that we cannot fully understand mental health disorders if we focus exclusively on the neurobiological level of analysis. Our own (Wikipedia's) article on RDoC calls it a "biologically-based" approach, which is misleading. Anyway, it seems you and I are on the same page. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply