User talk:Domen von Wielkopolska

Hello, Domen von Wielkopolska, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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! Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is no room to add more images, but if you are able to create a map that combines features of File:Poland960.png and your new map we can just take out the other and keep yours. So, have a new accurate map that of Mieszko's Poland, with old cites and political boundaries and names of countries (color would be a plus). That would really add to the accuracy of the article. --E-960 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I understand your point about Toruń and other academic cities above 250,000, however, we cannot name all of them in the lead. The lead is only focused at largest cities (not metropolitan areas) just like in the other European country articles. The rest is mentioned in the body. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski, 10:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But other European articles mention at least cities over 300,000 in the lead, including France:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

"Other major urban centres include Marseille, Lyon, Lille, Nice, Toulouse and Strasbourg." - Strasbourg has 276,170 inhabitants (city proper).

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć. Dlaczego skończył się spór o mapkę w infoboksie HRE? Przecież ewidentnie np. Śląsk w XIII wieku nie należał do Rzeszy i jest na to bardzo bogata literatura. W internecie można znaleźć niby z książki Norberta Conradsa Berlin-Oppeln 1995, ISBN 3-87466-248-9 sowie ISBN 83-85716-36-X, Zarys historii Śląska do 1945

W ten sposób Śląsk brał udział w politycznym i kulturalnym rozwoju Czech jako centrum Rzeszy i Europy, a nawet sam miał w tym znaczny udział. Dla czeskiego króla Karola, który w latach 1347-1378 jako niemiecki cesarz Karol IV rządził Rzeszą, Śląsk stanowił istotny element jego władzy. W 1348 r. włączył on na trwałe Śląsk do grupy krajów Korony czeskiej. Ponieważ Czechy w całości należały do Rzeszy, Śląsk jako część Czech był jednym z krajów Rzeszy.

Ale zawsze mi się to nie zgadzało, bo kiedyś coś wyczytałem innego. Teraz to znalazłem w książce jaką mam w domu Śląsk Cieszyński w średniowieczu (do 1528 roku), w przypisach 424 i 510, odpowiednio na stronach 116 i 135, że nawet po inkorporacji Śląska do Królestwa Czech przez Karola w połowie XIV wieku, Śląsk dalej nie należał do Rzeszy (!). To przeczy drugiej części powyższego cytatu, choć potwierdza pierwszą część, bo książę cieszyński był wikariuszem Rzeszy w latach 80. XIV wieku i miał bezpośredni wpływ na jej politykę. D_T_G (PL) 07:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć, nie jestem pewien, nie miałem za bardzo czasu uczestniczyć w tym sporze. Proponuję zebrać solidne dowody i wtedy wznowić spór. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a source for your claim that Spätaussiedler show a "Slavic DNA" and are thus not considered "real" German. By legal definition Spätaussiedler are "deutsche Volkszugehörige" and my dictionary translates that as ethnic origin. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ones from Russia are Volga Germans etc., but the ones from Poland are at least in large part Slavic (Polish-speaking Silesians and other groups). Wikipedia article says that a Spätaussiedler can be anyone who was a citizen of Germany before WW2 - regardless of ethnicity (and pre-1939 Germany had Polish minorities, see the 1925 census) - as well as any ethnic German who was not a citizen of Germany before WW2 (so for example Volksdeutsche from Volhynia, Lublin, Poznań or Łódź, who had Polish citizenship in 1939, can be Spätaussiedler too). Due to the fact that Volksdeutsche from outside of the Recovered Territories can also be Spätaussiedler, I don't think you should add this data in the section about population of the Recovered Territories. Because it is quite misleading to suggest that all of them emirgrated from the Recovered Territories. Many of them were emigrants from Poznań, Łódź, Bydgoszcz, Warsaw, Lublin, etc. - anywhere where pre-1939 Polish citizens who signed the Volksliste in 1939-1945 lived. Nobody really knows how many of them were from the Recovered Territories and how many from pre-1939 Poland. I know that the official German narrative is that anyone with German citizenship is an ethnic German. Germany even continues this narrative today, but now it looks like political correctness when they claim that Afghans or Turks in Germany are ethnic Germans. Before 1945 the same argument was used by German nationalists to claim that all Slavic-speaking groups in Germany were ethnic Germans (except those who were to be eliminated according to Generalplan Ost). But they were Germans only by citizenship, and perhaps by national identity in many cases, but not in terms of ethnicity (the original 19th century German definition of ethnicity was based on Muttersprache, so someone whose Muttersprache is Slavic cannot be an ETHNIC German, by definition). Genetic studies are now considered politically incorrect in countries like France or Germany so I don't think they are interested in researching how much of "Slavic DNA" they have, but you will agree with me that the 19th century German understanding of ethnicity was based on Muttersprache. Someone whose mother tongue was Slavic could not be ethnic German, even if their genetic origin was Germanic. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal WP:Original research. You need to provide WP:Reliable sources to support your theories. And even if you would find such sources we would present both views in a WP:NPOV manner without deleting well-sourced content. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to support that 1) all of the Spätaussiedler originated from the Recovered Territories and 2) that all of them were ethnic Germans. The English Wikipedia article about Spätaussiedler (remember, we are on English Wikipedia, not on German Wikipedia) says the following about who they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany

"German law allows (1) persons descending from German nationals OF ANY ETHNICITY or (2) persons of ethnic German descent and living in countries of the former Warsaw Pact (as well as Yugoslavia) the right to "return" to Germany and ("re")claim German citizenship (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler "late emigrants")." Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source, please stop WP:editwarring and don't delete sourced content. You also restored a completely unrelated edit by a sock who had just made pretty absurd and unsourced additions. Please stop. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Deutsche Welle article about Spätaussiedler which clearly mentions that many of them were ethnic Poles or with mixed Polish-German identity:

https://www.dw.com/pl/emigracja-z-polski-do-niemiec-liczna-i-prawie-niewidoczna/a-16181647 Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote the relevant part. We distinguish between Spätaussiedler (ethnic Germans) and their family members (not necessarily German) I guess that's what that article is about. Could you please at least restore "your" version without the edits of the sock. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article mentions Czesław Gołębiewski and Lukas Podolski as examples of ethnic Polish Spätaussiedler (not family members, but Spätaussiedler - they could be ethnic Poles or other ethnic Slavs as well). I will remove those edits by sock. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domen von Wielkopolska-
I've copied this here to make it more accessible - I appreciate the good intentions [regarding adding the numbers for that map] but [I had] not added them for a reason, the census collects those numbers by response to those identifying "one or more ancestry group", and even notes in the 1990 abstract (page III-3) that the response data for those handles reflects a change in the way the census asked questions; ergo the map with these categories combined is double-counting large amounts of people who are "French", which is the category that by far has the largest general answers. Many of those "French" responses would have included other categories, in reality many being both "French - French-Canadian" or "French - Cajun/Acadian". Also adding Quebec w/[a] label is inappropriate, as many within this umbrella of "French Canadians" or "French Americans" do not necessarily identify as Québécois, even if it does have the highest proportion of Francophones. W/some ancestries like Polish Americans, there is 1 answer, but having 3 distinct identities listed for Francos does not mean intuitively that they add up [to a representative number]. Respectfully --Simtropolitan (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded on your Talk page. Best regards, Domen (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for creating the Italian ancestry map for Canada and U.S. I have a comment though. The percentage range from 7-20 % seems much too broad. For example, Ontario with 7% and New York with say 15% (I haven't checked) is given the same weight in the map. I think it would give a much better picture if these much higher percentage ranges were given separate categories. Is this something you can update? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded on your talk page. Best regards, Domen (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see my response there. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the figures have already been denied by the original publisher (a tabloid newspaper), while no other reliable sources have cited the figure. See for example [1] and [2] where it has already been stated by RS that the figures might be inaccurate. Thus, its been already disputed if the figure actually came from the Russian MoD and no other RS have cited it to the Ministry. Putting up a casualty figure and citing it to the MoD ignores the fact that the original source recanted and no other sources have backed it up. I have no problem with mentioning the whole thing in the casualties section where we can expand on the whole issue. Also, regarding my comment "within minutes", I was quoting the BBC, as you can see in their post. EkoGraf (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is wrong that they were "removed within minutes". They were there for over six hours. Check the number of captures from Web Archive:

Here (there were 6 captures when I was last checking, now there are 8) - http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4672522/

And my screenshot - https://imgur.com/a/B0UwIbj - the figures were there in the snapshot from 12:13:37 and they were still there at 18:32:07 .

I would leave these figures in the Template until we hear some sort of official dementi, or new official figures, from the Russian MoD.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an official denial by the original publisher cited to reliable sources (RS), while there is no actual RS verification that the figures actually came from the MoD. Just because we think that the figures might be right and that there is a cover up, unless its verifiable per WP guidelines WP:Verifiability (verified by reliable sources) we should tread lightly. Ignoring the fact that the information has been denied by the original publisher as inaccurate, and presenting the information as fact goes contrary to WP: Original Research. I would advise that you take up the issue at the main article's talk page and reach a consensus on the issue first. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Russian source mentioning 9861 military deaths refers to casualties on the Ukrainian side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Weber 123 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Western Belorussia

added a link pointing to Plurality

Wilno Voivodeship (1926–1939)

added a link pointing to Plurality

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Belorussia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Seminole, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 12:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you added demographic data for "American Indian and Alaska Native alone". I'm not sure I understand the inclusion of "Alaska Native". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some (few in numbers, but still) Alaska Natives in Arkansas, people who migrated there from Alaska. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are correct, and if you don't know what it means, and I had to Google for 10 minutes to find out what it means, then most of the readers of these state articles won't know either, which kind of makes your edit useless. Perhaps you could get some input from others--a consensus about benefit or not--before adding unfamiliar data to every state in the US. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIAN means American Indian and Alaska Native and this is a standard census category used by the U.S. Census Bureau. Check the source which I linked, everything is there in Excel tables. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were 340 Alaska Natives in Arkansas according to the 2010 census. So they cannot be omitted, I cannot write just "American Indians". The same applies also to other states. Or do you suggest to just call them "Native Americans"? But as I said the census category is AIAN. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Talk:Utah#Native tribes. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I already responded there. Please stop reverting my edits. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get you to review WP:NOTSTATS and WP:Prose. Moxy🍁 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add prose to these articles later on but first I want to add tribal population data for every state. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move in that direction as copy pasting charts with no contextual information is basically useless for research purposes. Moxy🍁 00:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Please see my discussion above. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started adding prose as you have already noticed. So far I added prose to 10 states.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of change to so many articles needs to be discussed at the project level. I reverted the addition at Washington (state) because a good portion of the table lists tribes that have no connection to the land that Washington sits on, since the US Census is tracking the affiliations of individuals in the state rather than tribal enrollments in general. SounderBruce 08:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many Native Americans live away from their reservations and often in urban areas. The US Census is tracking all members of all tribes not only local tribes. I don't see any reason why shouldn't "immigrant tribes" (tribes that have no connection to the local land) be mentioned. All tribes should be listed like they appear in the Census. I will restore the addition. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that non-local tribes shoud be ignored is like saying for example that in an article about ethnicities of White Americans only people with colonial background should be displayed while Italian-Americans shouldn't. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no one saying tables of Native American tribes should be removed because they're Native American, so please don't hide behind a colonialism straw man. Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data, instead it is an encyclopedia the condenses that data into readable information that summarizes a situation at a very general level. If an individual wanted the raw data on tribal numbers from a census fourteen years ago, they can go to census.gov, it's not hidden, it just doesn't need to be here. If this is something that should be added to all U.S. states, then it needed to be brought up somewhere central like WP:US. At the moment, I see a lot of pushback against these tables, and so I'll be acting on that and removing these additions until a consensus to include is clear. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking the article about Illinois right now and there is a lot of data about ethnicity and ancestry in this article:

Illinois#Demographics

I don't understand why do you think that adding data about the largest Native tribes in each state is not appropriate? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a tribe is the largest in a state, that is informative, and should be included as a sentence in the prose in the race/ethnicity section that every state includes. Maybe also with info as to why they are the largest, and in what region of the state they predominantly live. It isn't, however, necessary to say that there were 70 Blackfeet living in Maine and 59 Sioux in Rhode Island 14 years ago. That does not greatly inform the reader of the article about those articles' topics. And you are right, the Illinois article has way too much raw demographic data included. These U.S. state pages are summary style articles, and that info could probably be removed or relocated to a subartilce named Demographics of Illinois. I could also see the argument that raw numbers on Native American tribes info could be presented on demographic subarticles like that, however, saying WP:WHATABOUT other demographic data isn't a good reason to keep the tables you've been copy/pasting this last 24 hours. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 and you are the only two users who disagree with my additions. It is not like there is "a lot of pushback against these tables" contrary to what you claim. It was just one user until you came. I think I'm going to revert your edits and add back my tables, but with only 10 largest tribes for each state. So I'm going to trim my tables significantly. You are right that people who want to see the whole picture can just click on the linked source and see more tribes there.

By the way, I was not just "copy/pasting" these tables, it actually took me a lot of time to compile this data.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given we have such refined presentation of ethnicities in states, I frankly don't get the idea that we can only describe the "largest Native tribes". If you have RS breaking this down in a more refined matter, I can't see a reason to not include it. Why would we discriminate here? Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I will include all of the tribes which I included before. I will revert Patrick Neil's edits. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a strong reason to remove these tables before a community discussion takes place. These don't appear to be the proverbial mountains of raw data placement we ordinarily want to avoid. Tribal breakdown info in a state article seems to be material worthy of inclusion, whether its in table or prose format. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you StefenTower for your comment, I agree with you and I will add back my tables.

If a community debate decides to delete or alter them (for example trim them), I will comply.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A decent guide to whether a table needs to be included is to translate that table's information to prose. From my example above, do you feel the sentence "In 2010 there were 59 members of the Sioux tribe living in Rhode Island" is one that needs to be included for the article on Rhode Island to be complete? Is excluding that sentence denying the reader information vital to their understand of the nation's smallest state? Again, I think moving your content to these subarticles is one option you could explore. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the smallest state with small tribal populations as an example doesn't seem quite balanced. It stands to reason that inclusion of such material in at least some top-level state articles would make sense for readers to better understand the respective states. Of course, it would go into all Demographics subarticles - but that doesn't mean they can't be included or summarized in the top-level articles in all cases. In the end, it looks like it works out to a case-by-case basis. But for now, Domen reverting the tables back in causes no significant harm. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I call for this discussion to move to this WP US talk as this applies to all US states and we seem to talking about shaping and placement of this material rather than outright excluding it. Also, I don't think it's right to make it about a user's conduct as it seems to me this was all done in good faith. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:37, 2 September 2024 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu I would call it WP:BRD rather than "edit warring". There was discussion here before the user brought back the content, which is arguably reasonable. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert back and discuss". When you say "reverted to my version, pending community debate", that's edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't excuse the language they used in the edit summary, but I as a 20-year editor said "in discussion" that their content is OK to include for now, and that came before they reverted back. The inclusion of this material causes no particular harm and the ultimate decision of a community discussion would be about shaping and placement rather than outright exclusion. It is WP:BRD by my standards. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspot is not an acceptable reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will use only this website as a reference - https://www.native-languages.org/states.htm is that fine?

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting it took this long to bring up that argument, but the couple of states I reverted back weren't using Blogspot, and at any rate, it is fair to assume that RS likely exists for this kind of content. Domen appears interested in finding that. Whatever happened to WP:AGF?? Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map from blogspot which I used for a couple of states already exists on Wikipedia, here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indigenous_American_Nations,_16th_century_-_2022_edition.jpg

That's why I assumed that it was OK to use it. But there are RS to support this data elsewhere. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure https://www.native-languages.org/ is the most reliable source either. It's a personal website run by "Laura and Orrin". Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can use also for example John R. Swanton's "The Indian Tribes of North America", as this book has a list of tribes for each state. But compiling this will be more laborious than simply looking at a map. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Virginia 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domen, you've asked me to come assist in the discussion about this, but your actions are making this too toxic for me to touch. I will not be participating any further. I do think content like this belongs in the Wikipedia but your behavior makes it too difficult to get behind that at this time. I will not be a part of anyone's edit war. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding "Timucua" to articles based on outdated sources such as Wanton and Reed, which are not reliable sources for the current scholarly consensus on the extent of the Timucua language. Older sources are often superceded by later scholarship, and Wikipedia must use sources that represent the current state of scholarship on a subject. As an example, Hann notes that John Goggin in the mid-20th century included Tocogago, Uzita, Pojoy, and Mocoso among Timucua speakers, but by 1978 Jerald Milanich had said it was unlikely those people were Timucua-speakers. Hann does argue for the possibility that Mocoso spoke Timucua, but notes the other towns spoke a different language.(*Hann, John H. (2003). Indians of Central and South Florida: 1513-1763. University Press of Florida. Pages=3-4, 114, 117-118) Please understand that recent scholarship, such as that from Hann, Milanich, and John Worth, has often made older scholarship obsolete. Donald Albury 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem. BTW, are there anywhere available population size estimates (at first contact with Europeans) for these Non-Timucua Florida tribes? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]