User talk:Dbachmann

generic {{talkheader}}:

Note that this talkpage may be semiprotected due to disruption by anonymous users. If you have a very new account, chances are that you do not absolutely need to send me a personal message before you have made your first ten edits elsewhere. currently unprotected, courtesy of AuburnPilot (talk · contribs). Also, if you want to discuss an encyclopedic topic, feel free to attract my attention by using article talkpages. I usually do react to e-mails, but as a rule I prefer to keep my interactions regarding Wikipedia above-the-board and up for everyone to see. This is also the reason for which I absolutely reject IRC admin discussions, and why I am unsure about the merit of the Wikipedia mailing-list. Decisions regarding the administration of Wikipedia in my opinion should be made on-wiki, not off.

---

Archives:

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 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Sanskrit versus Prakrit inscriptions

Sanskrit was deliberately not written down as early as Prakrit . This is from academic written sources, so to mention that both Sankrit and Prakrit were written from the same time is an absolute lie or misleading to those who read this article. I have more than one academic RS sources that back it up. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sanskrit and Prakrit" at the time were different registers of the same language, not actually different languages. The distinction is irrelevant for the purposes of the list. Still, your references may be a useful addition to clarify this point. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at thissource, pleaseTaprobanus (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That they were different registers of the same language is a fact. It is clear from the words that were applied to call them so. "saMskRtA vAk" was that word, and here saMskRta/adorned is an adjective describing the noun vAk/speech. Similarly prAkRta vAk(artless/ungrammatical speech) has prAkRta as an adjective of vAk. There was no language called just as "prAkRta". On the other hand, several prAkRta based languages evolved out of "prAkRtA vAk" which are identified as "prakrit languages".­ Kris (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite or OR Taprobanus (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are telling me this seeing that I have just told you. The language under discussion is "Old Indic". It's "high" register is known as Sanskrit, its vernacular as Prakrit. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab u's talk page has become a substitute for the article talk page. Should we move the contents to the article talk page ? second then should'nt the article then refer to old indic as the language attested not Sanskrit and Prakrit because the cite clearly says those who inscribed knew the difference and made a choice to do what they did ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You had said in the article's talk page: "ffs, I don't want to "get" anywhere, I'm just protecting the article's integrity. WP:RS: Iravatham Mahadevan (2003). Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times of 3rd BCE to the Sixth Century A.D. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Any questions? dab (𒁳) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)". The reference in question] does not mention any of 3rd BCE at all, whether in the title or in the contents. It is a false reference. Iravatham Mahadevan has said nothing here of the sort that is attributed by the Dravidian zealots to him. ­ Kris (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

two points

Hi!

• Umm, the management of your talk page is entirely your business, and I would never suggest otherwise. But I have a reasonably speedy internet connection, and it takes noticeably longer to load your talk page than, say, CNN. Think of the poor slobs out there with dialup; it might take them even longer. So...perhaps... archiving a bit... might be considerate to others. But it's your call.
• Hey thanks for the edits to List of endangered languages in Europe, but you seem to be shedding languages as you go. Forex, you ditched Krymchak language asserting that it isn't spoken in Europe. I'm not a geographical genius, but I'm reasonably certain that the whole of Crimea is in Europe. Other languages seem to have been deleted as well....Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, sorry about this, I was going to hand the archiving of this page to a bot soon... Regarding Krymchak, according to SIL, it is spoken in Uzbekistan (most), Georgia, Kazakhstan, ostensibly omitting the Crimea. It would seem that the language is already "extinct in Europe", and just hanginng on by its fingernails in Asia. Other languages I removed for lack of reference. I suppose this entire "endangered languages" thing should be rebuilt strictly based on the Red Book of Endangered Languages. dab (𒁳) 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Turko-Mongol/Turko-Mongol

Hi dab. I liked your idea of redirecting these articles (Turko-Mongol, Turco-Mongol) to Mongol Empire or Mongol invasions. However, the article Turco-Mongol has been restored again, with some really dubious statements. Your advice is needed. Cheers. Tājik (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I still agree it could be redirected, but I'm fine with the present disambiguation page too. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology

Hi. I reverted back my edits on Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. You did not even give a reason for deleting the specifics of Harpur's accademia background, but anyways I added a source. I discussed the inclusion of the disagreement on entymology on the Talk:Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology page. Madridrealy (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Could you do something about this please? I had merely added other classes of Sanskrit Compunds that were not mentioned earlier. Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have made mistakes with Sanskrit in the past, showing that it is best that you source your additions of this kind. Mitsube (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is a reason we have a Sanskrit compounds article: it's so that the main article doesn't need to lose itself in discussing different types of dvandvas. Please see WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Family lead

Consensus is on my side in the Obama Family article lead...Please do not edit again, otherwise your edits will be nothing but trolling.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

you really have no idea how this works, do you. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to comment ...

You may wish to comment on this absurdity. I had already redirected it once per DICT, and the new "text" isn't getting any better. It also seems to be a significant copy of the .de article, with some cruft left out and new nonsense added. The .de page is apparently by the same newbie editor who is stuffing cruft here. It seems to be an endless loop ala .en wrote crap, which was copied to .it, which was copied to .de, which is now back on .en. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India

I know u did comment to Dinesh but it kind of gets lost in the massive discussion. Would u mind commenting or moving your comments to the end of here. I would understand if you choose not to. thanks. Docku: What up? 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu

Can you take a look at the article quickly...users are pushing one viewpoint which has been discredited by serious scholars. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• See the Talk:Xiongnu and this before. Best, E104421 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to summarize, there are many theories on their origin, but E104421 is trying to erase other theories from the intro. The article had a tag for months before I edited it. Where-as Nlu kept my categorization (which means he kept it) but kept the previous intro for further discussion (since I was WP:BOLD. Another use came and agreed with my info-box change and someone rated a B after I changed the intro. Please look at the diffs and let us know. With all the floating theories and specially Turkologists like Doerfer rejecting in the strongest term any connection with Altaic, it does not make sense to claim they were Altaic in the intro. So I created a category with all the current theories. You can judge based on the talkpage and the last edit I did [1] which is more scientific. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

POV?

Oh please, obviously, you have done way more edits than me and you are trying to balance POVs, which is fine. One one hand you have someone pushing a Sanskritist Hindutva agenda and on the other hand you have me, someone trying to cite and write. Now just because you disagree with both of our edit contents does not mean both are POVs. It still means one is a POV and one is a normal edit. What you are trying to do is clubbing someone like Srkris and me on the same POV side, however, you are obviously missing the point since I do not enlarge labels, do not push POV, do not ruthlessly edit without proper citations, do not exaggerate the contents of the citation and most importantly not refrain from making appropriate talk page points. Replacing bias with content information does not make the content information bias.

I am a professional linguist and I am concerned about the nonsense being written here in the name of linguistics, which is actually pure POV garbage and random usage of terms without the faintest relevance to what it actually stands for, linguistically. All I am saying is this, please do not brand POV and a POV-cleanup together and push both of them off the cliff. In this process, you are discouraging cited edits and, in essence, the whole process of Wikipedia upgradation. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you are a professional linguist. Then surely you have heard of the difference between a script and a language? You are adding nothing new. All you are doing is pushing the inclusion of material that has been covered for years at the proper location into an article where it is off topic. I agree your sources are valid. So please stop wasting my time and yours, and begin working on the articles to which they are actually relevant. --dab (𒁳) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean when you talk about the difference between a script and a language. However, two points. Firstly, the script has been allegedly 'deciphered', perhaps not the full lexicon or syntactic structure, but a hint has been provided by all the decipherment claims about what language family or 'language' it belongs to, it is just that there is no consensus. Secondly, it is very much unfalsifiably arguable that this 'script' is not just an arbitrary collection of random symbols and that it corresponds to the writing system of a language, the decipherment claims of which have no consensus. It is a code, the characters stand for something, that much we can say, since it has a system. Certain characters corresponding to a certain semantic domain, which follow a pattern. You have a set of characters in pottery, another set in clay jars, etc. If all the disclaimers are mentioned and the claims also listed, it makes several things clear - that there is no consensus as to whether this corresponds to a language, or if it just a script, or if it is just garbage - all these viewpoints are presented in the Indus Script page. We make a cross reference to that and provide a very brief summary of the decipherment claims. I hope this helps. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

no this doesn't help. It just establishes that you really want the Indus script to encode Dravidian. No, it isn't established that this is a script rather than a non-linguistic symbol system. Yes, your observations are perfectly notable to the Indus script article, but there is no coneivable reason why they should need to be duplicated at List of languages by first written accounts other than your personal obsession with the topic. We could just as well burden the list with full discussions of the Phaistos Disc or Linear A. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the Phaistos Disc. However, as I see your edits, you are deceiving me and reverting my edits in the Indus Script page in spite of mentioning that my citations are proper and that it should be in that page, is this some kind of a joke? Can you please explain that? There is a sense of partial consensus now, but you seem to be hell bent on tricking me out of this whole game. Are you also a part of the Sanskrit-Hindu POV agenda like User Srkris? Or do you really want consensus and NPOV? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do disagree that I was pov pushing there, however, you have indeed pointed out that these mentions do not belong to this page but the Indus Script page. Thanks for all your efforts in cleaning up the scum. We can start our academic discussions there. Thanks again. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

As a professional linguist, he is trying to bring in all his Original Research claims into wikipedia like saying that the indus script is a dravidian language??? and that there were tamil inscriptions on 6000BCE pots.­ Kris (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind staying off a sensible discussion? I am a Sociolinguistics teacher and my current research (amongst others) is on the seven vowel system of Kikuyu language and other Bantu languages, which has nothing to do with IVC. Indus Script has been deciphered as many things and Dbachman himself agrees that the citations are proper and need a mention, the argument is about this article featuring that. So now you agree that the 'scratch marks' are suddenly inscriptions? IVC is not from 6000 BCE, so stop your usual exaggeration nonsense and start looking for bogus citations that quote Sanskrit as being from the freakin' 3rd millennium BCE to glorify it further. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut the holier than thou attitude, and try to make some sensible edits. That you are pushing your agenda by quoting irrelevant stuff in articles is quite clear, and doing it intentionally despite being a "holier than thou" sociolinguistics professor makes it all the more malicious. I would stay off your level of sensible discussion if you would mind keeping your agendas off wikipedia. And oh, I was referring to your forthcoming excavation reference with scratches on pots that are in Tamil dated to 6000 BCE now that you successfully claimed that there is a 600BCE inscription in Tamil Brahmi. It was not my claim that IVC (so-called) script dates to 6000BCE.­ Kris (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your history of five blocks, a thousand warnings and bad editing makes it evidently clear. Stop using phrases without the faintest understanding of what it means. You are just a charlatan, a mere troll running your Sanskrit-came-from-Mars agenda here without any clue of languages, whatsoever. I wish I was as jobless as you are, to actually spend so much time, organize it and inject the Sanskrit-Hindutva agenda in every page. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Hi, I'm one of the main users that works on the Potential Superpower pages as well as other Power in International Relation pages. I've noticed that you put up some things like merging, but didn't post it in the talk pages. However, I'd like to inform you that Potential Superpowers has it's own subsection. But since the entire thing of Academics discussing what's a superpower and, and what's a potential superpower and not. And unless we want Potential superpower taking up half the superpower pages, then we shouldn't merge. Lastly, the reason why it's considered Potential is because according to experts in the field of IR, Polisci, Geopolitics, these specific countries are the ones that are most talked about of what could be the next superpower, due to them having good ______ and ______, which falls under the futurology tag you added. However, some of the potential superpowers like China and EU, the entire community is mixed about those. For instance, Fareed Zakaria believes that China and EU are rising and might become superpowers in the near future, while Parag Khanna believes that China and EU are already superpower. And since the whole community is divided among that issue, it's considered a potential superpower. While some IR/Polisci/Geopolitic experts believe that America isn't a superpower any more, the majority still believe that America is still a superpower. Being a Potential Superpower is a category of power as it's more then a great power but not quite yet a superpower. Deavenger (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate some independent advice

on the kind of model we should use in dealing with pages that are being constructed to explore triliteral or triconsonantal roots in Semitic languages. I'm thinking of K-B-D and Q-D-Š. You have a broad and deep familiarity with pages on linguistics, and a glance at the issue to provide us with a larger perspective would be much appreiciated. The question is whether on every page a Hebrew paradigm should be used to illustrate the root, or not. I think a comparative paradigm is useful on a mother page e.g. Triliteral to which subpages can be linked, while on each sub-page, discursive description of each language's particular derivations is more economical than rote, and predictable paradigms. The alternative appears to me to invite several exponents or speakers of each semitic language to follow up by plunking in an illustrative conjugation repeatedly, to parallel the precedent set with the introduction of Hebrew, a principle that would tend to distract attention from aspects of pure philology and the semantic-cultural 'Sprachfeld', and push the pages into ethnic elbowing for space and attention, of the usual kind - a danger I, for one, see in that proposal. Still, I may be wrong, and would appreciate guidance. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you completely. In my view, dedicated articles on specific rules need to remain the exception, viz. reserved for cases of extremely notable roots. Less notable roots should be relegated to wiktionary. Once we have established that we do want a Wikipedia article on a specific root, we should of course try and collect material from as many Semitic languages as we can.

At present, we have nine such articles, and there are some even among these that I would contest:

• A-D-N should be on the world for "lord" (adonai), not the root.
• K-F-R, K-T-B should just go to wiktionary
• Ḥ-M-D could be a disambiguation page
• Ḥ-R-M may be worth keeping, but it could also be a disambiguation page.

I also feel that the List of Proto-Semitic stems would be better off on wiktionary, like wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European roots. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the input. I'll notify the page. The work done there has been substantial, and is new, and as an outsider looking on, I'd be reluctant to see the enthusiasm shown by a very knowledge pair of contributors repaid by some rapid measure of cancellation, removal or relocation. I hope there is time to allow us to see how it develops, before pondering the merits or otherwise of shifting it to, for example, wiktionary. Best Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of Syriac Christians

Just wanted to say that you've done a very good job with the article, it now reflects the dispute in a much better way than the previous version of the article. I also wanted to say that I myself and Assyria 90 (talk · contribs) will support a move for the Assyrian people article to Assyrian/Syriac people, and I hope, and I'm guessing, more will do. The TriZ (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks -- I am glad we seem to be making progress with this. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

non-exclusive ethnic groups

DB, normally I would say your deletions of material from this article are entirely justified. But at this specific moment, I think they are inappropriate. I just nominated the article for deletion. By deleting material after my nomination, people will be assessing an article that I did not actually nominate for deletion. In other words, as long as the voting process for deleting the article is on, I ask you to restore the contents you deleted. let people read and comment on the article as it was when I nominated it for deletion and then vote on whether it should be deleted or not. Then, if the consensus is to keep the article, you can delete material that is not policy compliant and in most cases I am sure I will completely support you. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, what you are AfDing is the article title, not specific content. If the article content is broken, it can be fixed without AfD. An AfD is about articles that cannot be fixed. Removing uncited information makes it only so much clearer that the topic has no merit. It also looks like your AfD will succeed without problems anyway. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay; my reasoning was: the contents removed shows what people thought the article was or should be about. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have never heard of "state nation" as a topic; we already have an article on "nation-state." We do not yet have an article on "ethnonational" which is a term I have heard a lot, maybe you would want to create on on that or ethno-nation? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it "ethnonational" would be the same as "nation state"? No, I haven't heard of "state-nation" myself, but it's the only bit of information that had any kind of reference. Apparently just a term coined to convey non-nation-states. Meaning that, as in the US, allegiance to ethnicity is replaced by allegiance to nationality. --dab (𒁳) 18:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Vedic refers to only the attested and not unattested sanskrit of the vedic corpus

Talk:Vedic_Sanskrit#Attested_vs_unattested_language

Please participate in the discussion and record the reasons for your repeated reverts. ­ Kris (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

please stop your childish and uneducated WP:SYN and spin campaign. --dab (𒁳) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You need some serious learning, so please go and see http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/ ­ Kris (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll find out who is the child later. Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking your permission for each edit that I make when I properly cite academic references. Apart from accepting the few corrections you occasionally do to my edits, you are a nothing to me. You be careful not to step on my toes as I am not your typical Indo-Aryan buffoon you are accustomed to play with, as per your own admission. ­ Kris (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives

We say the "English people" or the "English," but we don't say "Englishs" with an "s." Same is for French, Japanese, Chinese, etc. Adjectives do not take "s" in English. HD86 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you are reading the article now. Hint, there is no need to notify me of every paragraph you have understood. Although I am glad you seem to manage to use Wikipedia to improve your understanding, this makes you part of, well, about a billion literate netizens. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of all that poetry of yours, you could have just thought before undoing my correction of "Syriacs." HD86 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You really haven't grasped the concept of actually visiting links you are pointed to, have you. Copy-paste from the section I have referred you to about four times now:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL books: 620; scholar 179
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL books: 53; scholar: 10

You are welcome. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In dictionaries [2], the word Syriac as a noun means only the language, much as the nouns "English" and "French" do. I'm sure you are aware of that, but my point is that dictionaries are probably a better reference. HD86 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF, can you read, Mr. non sequitur? [3] I don't know if English is your first language, but you certainly aren't behaving as if cogitation was your principal pastime. You may want to read up on a thing called nominalization. Happended to adjectives such as "Syrian", "Egyptian", but not in the same way to "English" or "French" (excepting Frenchies). Oh, but I forgot, you don't follow links. Please just leave me alone now, ok? --dab (𒁳) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You just violated 3RR

{{uw-3rr}}

I'm sorry, before I could warn you after your second revert in Rigveda, you were too quick in reverting.­ Kris (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I vaguely recall from primary school that more than three = 4 at least, so it is probably too early to feel sorry. Colchicum (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

indeed you are sooty, dear pot. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Sanskrit page

Why, in spite of several of your mentions, are you allowing Sanskrit to become a Voice of India featured article? Srkris pointed the link India to the Indian Subcontinent and is constantly involved in enlarging labels. In his edit summary, he cites it as a copyedit, which is basically a dirty trick. How is it that you don't seem to be concerned about the persistent vandalism happening there all this time, in spite of your repeated assurances? Please help me there. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. Srkris is just about done here. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RIG G-172.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RIG G-172.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in the most recent discussion on my talk page, since it involves you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hittite mythology

In this edit you introduced an unfinished sentence "The Sun goddess of Arinna (Xanthos)", not containing a verb and not ending with a full stop. Could you complete it?  --Lambiam 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I suppose this was just a brief edit to place the link. Feel free to flesh it out. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:About lists of countries and territories

Hi. Template:About lists of countries and territories is up deletion again at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 23#Template:About lists of countries and territories. Input welcome. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your guidance

Hi dab, I'm placing a message here that was mistakenly left in your user page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

As a new wikipedian,I was keen to create two articles on a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada . Both are highly respected societies but I am trepidated to note that there has been some debate as to whether their members merit sufficient notability!!!To my way of thinking they do but I would welcome your advice as an adminsitrator .

Regards

(RNaidu (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

dab, I know you've responded, but you may be interested in my own response at User talk:RNaidu. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility, Denial Hate Speech

First and foremost I would like to thank you for helping out on assyrian articles. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. Ninevite (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, well, we are familiar with the dispute of Aramaeanism vs. Assyrianism, aren't we -- no need to keep reenacting it on-wiki. Apart from that, I recommend WP:DENY. This HD86 character will get himself blocked all by himself if he keeps going like this. --dab (𒁳) 21:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just visiting your page to request for your attention in this matter, but it seems someone has beaten me to it. Gabr-el 00:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's kind of pathetic though. You have no problem of denying that Syriac is an ethnicity and no problem with the "racists" that talks about an extinct Aramean people. So please, keep the double standards for yourself and an advise for you Ninevite, get your head out of your ass and please, realize that you're as much biased or probably more biased than any other user involved in this matter. You saying HD86 and my vote is to be neglected, it just says alot... The TriZ (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take your own advice by "get your head out of your ass and please, realize that you're as much biased or probably more biased than any other user involved in this matter. You saying HD86 and my vote is to be neglected, it just says alot... " First and formeost you lack communicational skills to speak with people. You are in dire need of some matters. I never doubted your vote on the talk page I respect your outlook on this issue. I suggest you have someone who speaks proper enlgish to read you my comment. I have a problem with the user denying that entire people do not exist. This is inflammatory behavior that is not accepted on an encylcopedi. You lack communication skills, civility, matters, you attack other users who disagree with your minority view, and the only thing you have contributed most to is deleted page that was considered to be one of the largest forks in the encylopedia. This user is clearly biased towards this topic. I can care less If this title mover over to the Assyrian/Syriac People I am entitled to my opinion however. Thirdly you have no absolutely no right to tell me what to do. Your vulgar comment above shows how unreliable you are in cooperating with other people. I do not deny there are people out there who claim a different ethnicity, I have a problem when people such as yourself attack and wiki stalk users who have worked on for this project to preserve and expand articles on a peoples history. This will be the only comment I leave for you because you are an incompetent person who attacks users without due process of law. This comment was not by any means pt forth for you so I suggest minding your own business when it comes to comments and remarks directed towards other users. Know your place in a conversation. This users history has shown nothing but conflict. He is of three or four people who have attributed to an article Aramaean Syriac People that was unhistorical and unsourced. I suggest this situacion disinclude users who have previously sought to only destroy and devalidate established articles. This user will stop at nothing until Assyrian Peoples page is the way he wants it. Alot of unbalanced wieght has been given to this user who has seeked only to fulfill his or her minority views for far too long. I have grown tired of this issue, on the grounds that users like this will stop at nothing until they have completely changed a page to liking despite all the sources provided. I will take a leave of absence until I have recooperated from this users blatant vulgur attacks not only against me but against many other users he or she seems to disagree with. Select you languge wisely when speaking to people you do not know. Your behavior will eventullay catch up to you in getting blocked or banned. Ninevite (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)