Jump to content

User talk:Asarlaí

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tandragee Idol

[edit]

Hi Asarlaí, good to see you back and thanks for the edits on the idol. Have two requests if that's ok - can we compare sources on the 1000BC claim as I'm seeing that date, cautiously mind you, almost everywhere. And, if you have time, would you mind fact-checking the Corleck Head article, given you wrote the wiki page on the Lughnasadh, your insight would be valuable. Hoping to get it to FAC in next few weeks. I don't need a copy edit I think, as it's been through GA and PR recently, but there are areas I'm uncertain about, eg was its use as a cult idol sequentially with Lughnasadh? Did they overlap? Also, I think the head cult sect is underdeveloped so pointers needed! If busy no problem, but no harm in asking. Best. Ceoil (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceoil. I've seen a few sources dating it to 1000 BC as well, which would be the Bronze Age. But most sources I've found so far date it to the Iron Age (500 BC-500 AD), and those seem to be better quality sources - more 'academic', more recent, and discussing the idol in more depth than a passing mention. But we should try to find as many sources as we can and compare them. Feel free to post some on the talkpage, and I'll do the same when I've time.
And yes I'll get a good look at Corleck Head next week, no problem. – Asarlaí (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. PS, I'm guessing you have access to JSTOR, but if not I can email the relevant articles. Many thanks, as am very uneasy about the level of supposition re dating. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say appreciate the help with the Corleck head, excellent and informed edits. While the topic is fresh in my mind, planning to take Tandragee to GA in around a month; have ordered a few books (Welsh, Raftery, Billingsley) which should arrive in a week or two. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samhain - new regions

[edit]

I'm currently editing the entire article.

So far, I've only updated the table, but the changes are linked to Wikipedia files that themselves relate the towns and customs mentioned to their Celtic origins. I don’t understand why you deleted it.

In the rest of the article on Samhain, I will include more details with references, but that will take a few days. For now, I've revised the table, starting from the previous version but with more accurate information. I don’t understand why you reverted my changes, Asarlaí. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.110.137 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was undone because you didn't provide any sources for it. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability - it's one of the key policies of Wikipedia. You can't add something without sources and say you'll add the references later. So if you keep adding things without references, it will keep being removed by myself and other editors. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original one doesn't provide them. I did the same, with inner (wikipedia) links. You can click on each one of them and check them out as they support the information given. The link and source is already on wikipedia itself. The original board doesn't provide sources, references or any other reliable information more than that. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The things that were already there are already supported by sources in the Samhain article. Whatever you put in an article's infobox, it must already be in that article, with references. Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't matter what's in other articles. Anyway, there are no mentions of "Samhain" or "Samain" in any of the articles you linked. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done as requested my darling ;) 83.34.110.137 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people 'darling' is rude... Anyway, Asarlaí, I responded on the Samhain page. Saw your tags but this stuff is so vague, I'd actually just kick it all off and dare someone to actually produce a source. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sources were provided together with new bibliography, references and further reading. Please pay attention next time before undoing someone's hard work. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s curious that you dismiss the connection between Samhain and the Iberian Peninsula as “vague.” This raises the question: does your critique stem from genuine scholarly rigor, or could it reflect an ideological resistance to accepting that Galicia and other Iberian regions might share a broader Celtic heritage?
The celebration of Samaín in Galicia is not a modern invention but part of a long-standing cultural tradition with striking parallels to Samhain. These connections are increasingly supported by a combination of genetic studies and historical research, which point to significant links among Atlantic populations. This challenges the notion that Celtic influence is confined to Ireland and Scotland.
Your dedication to preserving the Gaelic Celtic identity is commendable, but one must ask if this cultural purism might sometimes cloud an impartial assessment of evidence. Could it be that broadening the Celtic narrative to include the Iberian Peninsula feels like a threat to the uniqueness of Gaelic heritage rather than an enriching addition to our shared understanding of Celtic traditions?
Acknowledging this wider Celtic context does not diminish the distinctiveness of Irish and Scottish culture. On the contrary, it enriches the story of a deeply interconnected Atlantic cultural sphere. I encourage you to reflect on whether your resistance is grounded in academic critique or perhaps in an emotional attachment to a narrower cultural framework. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continue reverting edits on this article without providing a single explanation. Instead of working to improve the content or addressing specific parts that might be questionable, your actions suggest a reaction driven more by passion than by reason or a genuine desire to enhance Wikipedia. If you find elements lacking, consider refining or removing only what is unsupported, rather than dismissing the broader topic outright. Be cautious of letting zeal cloud your judgment—it risks undermining both your credibility and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on the article talkpage about your edits, with a full explanation of why they've been reverted. Please reply there and stop leaving these messages on my talkpage. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asarlaí&oldid=1259506128"