User talk:Dbachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Dbachmann)
Jump to: navigation, search

About the map-flag thing[edit]

Well since we do not have pictures of all the flags of different dynasties, maps are mostly used in order differentiate it and so the picture isn't plain blank. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your comment. Yes, this is what has been the case, and what I have changed, because it was a misuse of the template slot. It seems you are explaining my own edit to me? A "blank flag" is certainly preferable over an inscrutable 15px "map", and the flag is correctly left blank because there was no flag. Problem solved. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to explain your own edit to you, but what i am saying is that i think it would be a better idea to have the map of the certain dynasty shown instead of a plain blank picture. Its better than nothing and is used in most if not all articles about dynasties. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age[edit]

Could you please contribute to this discussion, Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Recent edit. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, some anonymous editors keep deleting this page or some portions of it. Do you think such edits are valid? --Ghirla-трёп- 08:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He should make a proper merge suggestion, but in essence I agree that this kind of Mahabharata-cruft should be merged if possible. An ancient kingdom and its capital, about both of which we have nothing but a list of MBh quotes, I do think this would make for one page at best (if not an entry in a "list of kingdoms in the MBh"). --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted his change, I have also removed the so called references in sections. A mention of Ramayana, Mahabharatha, that they have some connection with the Kingdom might be enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Kundalini syndrome is another funny page. The authors carefully omit mention of the word "pseudo-science" which immediately springs to mind after reading the first sections. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be pseudohistorical revisionism. None of the citations describe it as a pseudoscience thus authors did it right if they omitted this proposed term here. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

yes, Videha has lots of completely unreferenced stuff. If you rip out all the (usual for the topic) unreferenced rambling, it will become much more obvious that the page wants to be merged.

Now "Kundalindi syndrome" is just childish. I parse this for the lead: "Kundalini syndrome is [...] sometimes called the 'Kundalini-syndrome',[1][2][3][...] or simply referred to as a 'syndrome'[8][9]". Please somebody take an iron brush to this one and clean out all the rambling, cheap verbal posturing and editorializing. Bladesmulti, I seriously hope you aren't defending this disgrace of an article. If you feel tempted to, I can only point you to WP:GREENCHEESE. I have nothing against an article on the topic, if written candidly and matter of factly. But you will note that "transpersonal psychology" is itself within the "New Age" bracket, so no further argument is required to put a topic which is admittedly part of "transpersonal psychology" within the same context. The Moon is made of green cheese is a good page, exactly because it doesn't try to pretend to be about lunar physics, and because (I assume) nobody has made a great deal of asking for references that it is not about lunar physics. --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your hopes are correct, I only discarded the suggestion of "pseudoscience" rest, I had already started to remove unnecessary from the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


The schoolmasterish tone of this edit summary is exquisite. (Season's greetings, dab, hope all is well!) rudra (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I suggest we insert the important genealogical information "is descended from Frankish high nobility including Charlemagne" into every biography on individuals with at least partial origins in western Eurasia! --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser[edit]

[[1]] You suggested last year that this article did not meet the general notability requirements. After reading your thoughts, I aree. I have therefore proposed the article for deletion. This is a heads ups. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Odotheus and Alatheus[edit]

Is it possible that the articles on the Gothic chiefs Odotheus and Alatheus might refer to the same person? Krakkos (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems plausible, or at least possible? It's a (mildly) interesting problem for the purposes of Wikipedia what to do with records of what may be either one single or two separate people. In Bhartṛhari we conflated it into a single page. It may make sense to do the same here. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked into it for a few minutes, and it seems to me that in this case, there is a rather clear consensus that this is a single person; and I did not see anyone explicitly stating that they disagree. It's a clear merge candidate. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the page move?[edit]

Hi there. Just wanting to follow up why you moved 'Dreaming (spirituality)' to 'Dreaming (Australian Aboriginal art)'? I can't find an explanation or discussion on the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I read the article's content? It is about a term for designs in Australian Aboriginal art. It is not about the concept of "Dreaming" in the field of "spirituality". Nor is it a discussion of "Dreaming" in the context of Aboriginal mythology, there is a (very poor) article called Dreamtime on that, but the main page for the topic is at Australian Aboriginal mythology.

In my opinion it is useless to keep page titles based on what the article "could" be about, as opposed to whatever content we actually do have on the page. If there is no content, or no referenced content, or if the content is too poor to be useful in any way, the solution is merge-delete, but in this instance, there did appear to be some actual information pertinent to Contemporary Indigenous Australian art, specifically to the Papunya Tula collective built in the 1970s. But now I am just reading the article back to you, I don't see why it should be easier for you to read this information on my talkpage phrased for you privately than in the article itself. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why am I being templated for leaving a comment about the lead section on an article talkpage? I didn't even touch the article. This must be one of the most toxic pages on Wikipedia ever. I am also not an idiot and did see the bunch of giant templates screaming "sanctions" right on the talkpage I edited. For the record, as long as I never even edited the page I would include myself in the class of "uninvolved administrators" mentioned. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty damn obvious that these children are heavily biased toward the feminist side and they aren't looking for anyone to get in their way. Not that we can do anything about it, sadly. Singdavion (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took offense at the message. I did not mean to imply that you were involved, nor that you did anything wrong. I try to notify everyone about the sanctions, whether or not I agree with them. Again, sorry for the bother. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arb motion that is VERY tangential to you[edit]

Just letting you know I've proposed a motion at [2] that does somewhat relate to you. Nothing needed on your part, just a heads up. Courcelles 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Saraswati (goddess) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saraswati (goddess). Since you had some involvement with the Saraswati (goddess) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


for your post to my talk page. Being an Arb has led me to cut down heavily on my watch list, but I'm still a bit active as an editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans again...[edit]

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Restatement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dbachmann. I have found that a few times(e.g.[3]) you had suggested that we should keep Aryan migration/invasion theories on a single page or their main pages, you were also correct when you had said that there is not much controversy when languages are mentioned, but it becomes controversial when migration/invasions are mentioned. That's how these pages and articles were maintained until last year when the one-sided Indo-Aryan migration theories were transferred to a few Hinduism pages without discussion. Even when you had protected the main page, and reverted to a better version[4] it looked much more neutral than the current version. There was no controversy or article disputes in those days. Can you suggest same resolutions here again? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

sigh, can it be that BJP has won another election? The "Aryans" always become much more "indigenous" after this happens. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the case. Modi's public relations team is very effective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Human Y chromosome articles[edit]

I do not think that a flame war is encyclopedic material (maybe [The_Jerry_Springer_Show The Jerry Springer Show] material). I am familiar with the history of the Y chromosome research; however my comment was based on the way Elhaik interacts with scientists in general. Please, see this, end of the abstract here, and the posts here and here. I try not to read intentions in scientific hypotheses (like the mutation rate), but Elhaik’s approach in general strikes me as somewhat unreliable.

I agree that the title "Sex with other human species might have been the secret of Homo sapiens’s [sic] success" is extremely weird. However, it is the title of a totally different piece, which only shares one of the authors of Mendez et al. 2013 It is my understanding that the point estimate cited by Elhaik et al. 2014 (not the confidence intervals) is also present in Mendez et al. 2013. Please, correct me if I am misinterpreting the figure and caption. The estimate of mutation rate of Mendez et al. 2013 is the lowest that I have seen so far in the literature, but the estimates in Francalacci et al. 2013 and Scozzari et al. 2014 are very close. By the way, Scozzari et al. 2014 is a very important paper and I think it should be included both in the pages for the haplogroup A and the Y chromosomal Adam. Please, take a look at that paper, and tell me what you think.

Maybe there could be a specific section on the mutation rate for the human Y chromosome where different estimates are indicated. If there was also an ID of which node of the tree was being considered as Y-MRCA in each of the papers that estimate its age, the article would be much clearer. Cordially, 07:49, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this. I agree of course that we can cite any scholarly publication, each in relation to others on the same topic, but if it should get too involved, we will need to do this at a standalone Haplogroup A00 article (this is surely the best solution, but it means investing the work necessary to build a new article from scratch).

The interesting thing for me was that a new clade "A00" has apparently been found. This does not seem to be under dispute. The "very ancient" date is a WP:REDFLAG, it can by all means be cited, but not as established fact and with the relevant caveats. It is plausible that the divergence would date to roughly 200kya, so this is the unsurprising result, but of course I don't pretend to know the "true" age any more than anyone else. It is unfortunate that the unduly confident publication of an "extremely ancient" date seems to have poisoned the well now, but we'll just have to deal with the situation as it is.

All our Y-haplogroup articles are in disarray, and they are typically far too confident when citing time depths. The most important thing is to impress on the reader that these are estimates with up to 50% uncertainty. It is unreasonable to cite time estimates to the accuracy of a millennium that are just the center of a wide 95% confidence interval (either round to a single significant digit or cite the interval explicitly).

The mutation rate discussion should probably go to the main Y-haplogroup page.

Regards, --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)