User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

DRV

I am sure you understand that my comment at the DRV on H.p. is primarily based on the feeling it would be more productive not to debate the matter further--not from any disagreement with your basic view--and i notice that Guy said the same--one of the few times he & I agree.DGG 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sure, it would be best not to debate it any further, after the out-of-process deletion has been reverted. If that doesn't happen, you know how these things go, we'll never hear the end of it. dab (𒁳) 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit warring has already started at Hindutva. Just look at the arguments given. How predictable. So much for cozy pipedreams of mergability. This may not be DGG's intent, but the message is that the Hindu section of WP has been abandoned as a hopeless case. Will that hurt WP? Who knows. After all, even the moon has kalańka. rudra 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

that seems to be the gist, yes: the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld. Instead of commending the few Wikipedians that still hold out attempting to let sanity prevail, the verdict seems to be that they are somehow culturally insensitive for not letting the "ethnic" people revel in their own truth. This is racist: they are ethnic, they don't know any better, leave them in peace. I keep getting attacked as "racist" for my fundamentally anti-racist position that everybody has a brain and is expected to use it, regardless of where they are from. It is not alright to disrupt Wikipedia with bad faith tactics or utter stupidity just because you are "ethnic". If the Islamists or the Neocons or the Maoists did the same, the community would rise as one (well, as much as it ever does that) and stamp them out, but apparently it is much more acceptable indulge in dishonest revisionism if you are a Hindu, don't ask me why. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I sigh with you, Dab. In my belief you hit the nail on the head.

Lunarian 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism are we? Hindus are not an ethnic race. Your view that Witzel and Co. represent gospel of truth is instrinsically racist. Your reaction to cirticism is pretty much like Witzel and Thapar's; accuse every one of your opponents of being a part of some monolithic Hindutva conspiracy. To be frank i dont believe in the IAT or OIT horseshit. Yet there is a grain of truth/plausibility in wiritings of Witzel's opponents. Witzel doesnt help his position by dishing out vitriol towards Hindus much like you. Moreover you are inadvertently promoting Marxist polemic and half-truths. Take the moronical comparision of Hindutva with Nazism for example. Even Gandhi is held to be Nazi by some Zionists. You have entrenched yourself in such a position where with your self-righteouness you've pissed of too many people.

It is not my job/wish to change your convictions. All i say is come down from your high horse and be prepared for a genuine debate rather than trying to force your opinions down everybody's throats. And for once, cut out all the paranoid conspiracist crap. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conflating Hindutva and Hinduism"? I am sorry if you didn't follow, but I was voicing an attitude I deplore, not my own. I am blaming people who wrongly think the Hindutva trolls are "the Hindus", and that "the Hindus" are "ethnic" precisely because that is a blatant falsehood. By opposing the fools on one side, I do not associate myself with the fools on the other. I have tried again and again to look for constructive debate to work out that "grain" you speak of, but it was all lost in the trolling. You didn't try to be constructive, you did what was more convenient, you joined the mob. I am not aware of genuine anti-Hindu trolling on Wikipedia, and if there was any, I would not be required to combat it, because the strong Hindu faction will clamp down on it within the minute. I am investing my energies where they are needed. My "opponents" are those who violate Wikipedia principles. Anybody who is willing to collaborate under these principles is not my opponent at all, but my fellow Wikipedian. If my presentation of the Hindutva fringe literature was one-sided, why did you not point out the other side? Meaning in expert sociologist literature of course, not in VoI publications, as will go without saying if you are serious about working together? From the material I have seen, it is clear that you have not done this because there is no evidence to support a counter position: the bad faith involved in the "scholarly" VoI publications is too obvious. A scholar like Parpola wouldn't use the term "trash" if there was any scholarly merit in there. A scholar like Diakonoff wouldn't talk of "complete incompatibility" if he could make out even a grain of merit. My entire point is that this whole "recent evidence" stunt by the VoI crowd is blatant bad faith revisionism, and is recognized as such in academia. Why do I care about this? Because Wikipedia's articles on ancient history keep getting trolled with this nonsense. I really have no opinion on "Hindutva" being good or evil beyond that, and have very little interest in them altogether. Any editor genuinely attempting to work out the "grain" you postulate would need to clearly distance themselves from the disruptive mob from the beginning. Nobleeagle has done that, and this has resulted in the fair Out of India article. Nobleeagle is not my "opponent": he has chosen to document the thing in good faith for whatever it is worth. It turns out it is worth practically nothing, and we'll let it stand at that, no enmity involved. If you could do the same, you would find you are on my side. dab (𒁳) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its deplorable that an administrator makes such a sweeping statement as "the Hindus are hopeless" etc. I hope sanity prevails at last. Praveen 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf? what happened to reading a comment? I was myself deploring the additude. Will I spend the next year pointing this out now because some people have the attention span of an invertebrate? dab (𒁳) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf! Its like saying "all the family members of dab are asses" and then deploring the same sentence after another sane user points out the generalization. Praveen 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ? (Lunarian 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, Praveen definitely misinterpreted that statement. Let me know if he tries to 'prosecute' you based on that. The Behnam 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

feeling and strategy

You asked me to explain why my "feeling" that the page should be abandoned was a rational response.

1. With respect to the truth of the underlying subject matter, it's not a question of feeling: I agree that the Hinduvista scientific claims discussed in that article are wrong because I know that they contradict the well-established data of anthropology and linguistics, and I think I know enough of those subjects to tell--it doesn't take much to show they are wrong.
2. How to express opinions is also something to be learned. Rhetoric is a subject to be studied, both formally and informally through careful observation and experience. This is a less exact science than linguistics--we may know generally that over-argument is not productive, but we cannot completely rely on a knowledge of rhetoric to known when enough is enough.
3. Fortunately, in addition to our rational facilities, we also have the emotional facilities for living with other people--developed much further back in biological evolution. Though we could come to these decisions analytically, through the methods of social science, this is rarely practical. Informal experience and common sense tells me that it is usually better not to try to squash one's opponents completely, and that it is usually impossible to actually convince someone with a strong emotional commitment to a position and supported by others who share that commitment. It also tells me that those most deeply involved in an argument are often not able to determine when this applies, and there is often occasion for the friends of one of the parties to intervene and bring about a truce.
4. We integrate our decisions by our feelings. Feelings does not mean raw emotionality. It means social judgment.

DGG 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In relation to Wikipedia, you have made an argument to revise the article, not to delete it. What you, and everyone else in the DRV, have signally failed to address is the issue of process. Even if the article ought to be deleted in principle - which you haven't established anyway - why must the deletion in fact be done in such a blatantly out of process manner? "Social judgment" in this case has been nothing but whitewashing a transparent play for a vote bank. rudra 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at Battle of Thermopylae? Some users are inserting the upper-bound of ancient estimates in the infobox, which is an impossible mythical 5.2 million Persians! Yet, the same users are removing the lower-bound of modern estimates which is 60,000. This doesn't seem NPOV at all.--Mardavich 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs)

I am more used to newbies and people with a fraying temper to delete unflattering posts from their talkpages. It appears that admins above a certain popularity threshold are allowed to do the same. Hence it may be better to keep track of this discussion (monologue) on my own talkpage. [1]

[2] your method of (not) reacting to criticism, your political understanding of the community as a popularity contest, and your unshakable belief that you have got it right, never mind the rules as long as you have enough buddies, is unwikilike. Do you spend a lot of time on IRC? Daniel, I do not have the time to waste on wikilawyering on an arbitration case at the moment, so that it may well be that this will end here. The fact that you cite your RFA approval rating to back up your impression that you are a law unto yourself now makes it evident that you have an attitude problem. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you :) Nice to know that you liked the tripadi despite my amateurish translation. Sarvagnya

Gone?

Hey Dab! Are you going away? This is very bad, with so many seasoned editors leaving. It grieves my heart whenever I see some one leaving, even those who were banned. I have a lot of respect for you, and your contributions cannot be ignored by any one with slightest of sense. Are those accusations that Wikipedia will fail correct? I hope you don't take my "delete" in bad faith. My delete was only against the article, and I haven't even touched the Hindutva article. It is no doubt there is propaganda, and there are people who accept it. There is no fighting back if you leave. Sanity should prevail. I seriously hope to find you soon. Reply to my comment. Should I enable my email?--Scheibenzahl 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

not at all -- I'm taking it easy for a while, that's all. There is nothing wrong with your "delete" vote, my disappointment is with how the politicians handled the case, not with the voters themselves. Thanks for your comment in any case! dab (𒁳) 06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Map update

Greets! Can you please update the map on the right to reflect Albania correctly. The country should be set to a color matching a ~10% Muslim minority. Thanks. - Dimror 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Thought you might be interested in contributing... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic

I like your changes. It appears that the fonts are only selected when using MISE6, owing to the "/**/ inherit;". This is not documented when looking at template:polytonic. I would be wise to add a note to the template so users do not get confused (as I became). If there are no complaings I would like to add the changes s:el:mediawiki:Common.css.

Also have a look at s:el:template:πολυτονικό to see how to use the template to make a <div>  Andreas  ^(T) 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

pseudoclasses

It doesn't work, but is probably due to the fact that it is only supposed to work on Internet Explorer 6 (at least in the way you implemented it now), I don't have the appropriate fonts installed and I'm having some font troubles since I upgraded to Debian 4.0 this weekend. —Ruud 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating issues

Would you take a look at the dating claims being used on Bhagavad Gita? The article currently says "Theories based on archaeoastronomical calculations from passages of the Mahabharata place the incidents upon which the Gita between 5600 and 3100 BCE (varying dates are given according to different calculations). The traditional date reflecting the beliefs of many devotional Hindus places the text in the 4th millennium BC, (3138 BC)" An attempt I made to note these theories as controversial has been reverted. There is also a strong ISKCON perspective. Buddhipriya 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories CfD

I have put up the categories "Fechtbücher" and "Illustrated manuscripts" for renaming here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:Fechtb.C3.BCcher. Johnbod 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

'twas out of no contempt

"...prancing throughout a grand drama - Sir, a simple, single, silly affair of that kind - is quite lost in five acts - but that is neither here nor there."

I understand you're an exopedian, but what the hell, I greatly admire the constant quality of your contributions and felt like dropping you a prancing pony. I hope something drizzles on the troubled waters and you can return to editing in peace again. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

urartu

Since you gave many valuable cotribution on page Urartu I would appreciate your opinion on renewed dispute (I lost count how many times this issue is brought oever and ov4er again [3] There is quote from Columbia encyclopedia and some users try question it.--Dacy69 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism

Hi, this article was originally created by the banned Hindutvaadi troll User:Maleabroad, which explains the unverified claims scattered throughout the article. In one sense the topic is valid since the Avesta and the Vedas, the texts which Hinduism evolved from share many similarities. But I wonder whether the page will look much different from Proto-Indo-Iranian religion once it is cleaned up. What are your thoughts? Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, well, concerning common origins, the article should just refer to Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. What should be discussed under this title are much rather historical interactions between the two religions, in particular the Parsis settling in Gujarat. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Matriarchy

wikt:gynecocracy which you linked to from Matriarchy doesn't exist yet -- only http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Gynecocracy ... AnonMoos 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a redirect, but some of the idiot admins at wikt deleted it again, it appears, but failed to move the page. I find people at wiktionary sometimes have their heads stuck in a dark place. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

important

Hi - pls have a look at this ANI report. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I have already reset his block to 2 weeks and explained why he still needs to be blocked for a bit. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts! The revert rudra has shown you is about a deletion of parts of quoted text from a citation because it makes the quote longer. I am pretty sure that you will understand that size of an article becomes an issue only when the article exceeds a certain length which was clearly not a case. I am sorry to say but I do not assume any good faith against rudra because he takes it as a sign on weakness, and has been highly uncivil to me in past. As you can see from the same revert, I did not revert it again, because I have least interest in edit warring.

Thanks for your effort again.--Scheibenzahl 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Etymology" section on Iran

You did a good job, but could you perhaps expand it a bit with some of the material from the old version, like the quote from Darius, or the map, and also the paragraph about Reza Shah's declaration to foreign governments to use the native term "Iran" instead of "Persia". I think an English translation of the Pahlavi words in parentheses is also needed. Cheers. --Mardavich 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

Thanks for keeping Bhagavad Gita on your watch list. There are a number of POV issues on that page that have been noted before on the talk page. Until recently the only sourcing for the article was from material by Swami Prabhupada, and his commentary is rather idiosyncratic. The article on him reads like a fan site, and similar issues may arise with the Bhagavad Gita article as different perspectives begin to be raised. I feel that the resistance to addressing the dating issue connects to a larger issue about neutrality with the article. If you would assist with ensuring compliance with NPOV there it would be helpful. Buddhipriya 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)