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 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Pforzen buckle

Hi dab. I would like to include an original (i.e. self-made) image in the article Pforzen buckle and add some sourced information on the academic discussion regarding the inscription itself. Please take a look at my talk page to see the image and leave any comments that come to mind. Thanks in advance. Varoon Arya 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. As to my sources, there were two: (1) A hand-drawn image in the book Runenkunde (K. Düwel, 2001, p. 19), which he had taken from Volker Babucke's Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen - Aspekte der Deutung (1999. p. 17); (2) A copyrighted photo from the chronico site (http://chronico.de/erleben/wissenschaft/0000297/). In response to your suggestion, do you think something like "cf. Düwel 2001" would suffice, granting that the book is listed in the literature section? Varoon Arya 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added what I see to be important information and would appreciate if you could give the article as it stands a quick read-through. Also, could you point me in the right direction for changing the rune images to an appropriate unicode font? (If so, please respond on the Pforzen buckle talk page). Thanks again. Varoon Arya 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

I have made no edits to any of the above articles DAB you accused me of.

My contributions that i make to other articles are in good faith and of good quality. Please check what your saying. And i demand an apology.

My edit weas concerning this article's suggesting, in a matter of fact manner, that Serbs and Croats are partly descended from Iranic peoples. All i wanted to clarify was that such an idea is merely a theory, mostly based on the derivation of the names Serb and Croat themselves.

RE: the scythians. i edited the article's genetics section only, not the 'descent' section. My aim was to state that haplogroups do not represent specific ethnicities or tribes. You just shortened what i said and took all the credit. That's OK, i am big man.

Hxseek 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

true, the offending edits date from 10 July and were introduced by an anon [1]. You still expanded on them. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Autotheism

Okay, now I see where i was wrong sorry about all that. I have just been mad lately and i had no reason to take that out on you. Shawnpoo 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bantu

Yes, I understand that my edit was rather drastic (and occasionally facetious) but I don't think that it warranted a full revert without an edit comment. Would you perhaps like to tell me what it was you felt was wrong with it, so I may work on it again?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I thought it was vandalism. Why did you remove the categories? No article should remain uncategorised. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from its talk page, it was about time for the article to be edited to stop uncritically using the label as the name of an ethnic group. The first category was specifically created to include members of this fictitious "Bantu people", and the second one was a specific ethnic group category, so they both had to go as neither was appropriate.

Actually, the discussion on the talk page is quite insightful and convincing, so I still don't understand why no one just went ahead and fixed it (which is what I tried to do).

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

House of Munsö

Hi Dab, I am still having the old dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try. --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dieter :).--Berig 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Folklore

I think we ought to rename the existing article Dutch folklore as "Folklore of the Low Countries" to be consistent with what we did to rename Dutch mythology. However I am not able to delete the redirect Folklore of the Low Countries as I am not an admin. Are you able to delete that redirect so we can move the article there? ThanksGoldenrowley 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

done. What are your thoughts on the "Mythology" article? --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the help today! Since you asked me, I think the lowlands "mythology" is pretty good it has a B right now and I dont like the idea of merging it to "continental germanic mythology", but I do wish to see contintal german mythology discuss things in broad terms, with links to lowlands the alps, the black forest, etc. I was in the region recently and the peple mentioned the mythology of "the regions" of the Rhine, Holland, and the black forest it seems to be common mainstream idea that regions can have myths. Today I've added and clarify the reference list substaintially. In addition, Wikipedia Netherlands has an article on Friesland mythology that mentions some Friesland-specific research that may be worth reading and adding. Goldenrowley 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cropping Image:Claude Vorilhon.jpg

I tried to do this myself, but gave up too soon. Your crop is a job well done. Thanks!Kmarinas86 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

If you have any time available on or following Tuesday, your input regarding which citations are sufficient to substantiate existing content on the Ebionites page and which are not would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: If you think that you would have any comments you would like to make at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop, I would encourage you to do so. You are one of the few "outside" parties who has already perused the discussion, and I believe your input as a non-biased outsider may well be very useful. Thanks again for all your work. John Carter 15:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that quite independent of questions of reliability of Eisenman's book itself, it has become clear that Michael C. Price's approach to giving citations for his claims is problematic (if not outright fraudulent). I think it would be only fair to remove the contested bits from the article for the time being, and ask Michael C. Price to present references to the satisfaction of other editors on talk first, and add his claims to the live article only after he has done that. It is unfair on the editors who have brought the article to FA status to tear it apart in this way now. Regarding Eisenman, I have created the separate James the Brother of Jesus (book) article so that the content of Eisenman's position can be worked out there, in isolation, beforehand, and once it is formulated in a stable way, the parts relevant to the Ebionites could be imported to the Ebionites article. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about ArbCom possibly being less than necessary at this point. Unfortunately, the petition was filed a few days before you were first contacted; they just now got to the point of deciding to take the case. I honestly don't know if the process can be stopped once it's started, even if the matter is resolved in the interim. If we can resolve the matter, however, I think that they would probably be willing to let it go without making a formal decision. The one major advantage which might arise from it, maybe, is a decision on possibly limiting problematic editors' contributions. Unfortunately, like I said, I don't have a clue what happens in situations like this. John Carter 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

don't worry about it. In my experience, the arbcom will likely just churn on this for a month or two, and then issue a few half-hearted admonishments. There is no evidence of blatant misbehaviour that would require any harsh measures. I would just recommend investing more energies into actually building the article than in compiling evidence for the arbitration case. regards, --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed content to the talk page per agreement with the majority of editors. Please keep the page on your watchlist for reverts by Michael Price. Ovadyah 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your question about the use of CE on the article talk page. Ovadyah 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, as you are probably aware, the Ebionites article failed in FAR. However, the arbitration case against Michael Price is proceeding, and the parties to the dispute have presented most of their initial evidence. I have introduced a proposed finding of fact on the workshop page here and a proposed remedy, along with my reasoning for this resolution to the conflict. If you care to add your independent voice to the proceedings, this would probably be a good time to do it. Ovadyah 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another blog-warrior on Indo-Aryans and IVC

Peddling his own stuff, here and here. rudra 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

this one appears comparatively reasonable, but of course he cannot cite his own blog as a source. This seems to be more vanity than pov pushing (remember Mr. Zed?). --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, more vanity than POV. But he seems oblivious and intent on self-promotion. His site has no working links, and his stuff is not published, but "likely" to be published. Hokay... rudra 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Hemisphere Maps

I'm curious as to why you deleted my Eastern Hemisphere maps from several articles. You said the maps were placed on seemingly random pages and shouldn't be on articles that concern the timeperiod of 500AD. Why? I believe the maps not only depict the borders of the article subject in question, but they also depict the world they lived in.

Take the Visigoth article, for example. The two maps currently on the page don't show any significant information about the Visigoth's world. Bare mention of their neighbors (but no borders), nothing showing Visigoth borders after the Franks took Aquitaine, and nothing showing the areas reconquered by the Romans in the 500s. Deleting the maps from that article effectively cuts readers short on some great information that helps further their understanding of the Visigoths and their world.

Additionally, I didn't place the maps on random pages; I placed them on articles that pertain to peoples and nations that are in the maps. Some of those articles had no other maps whatsoever, so readers leave without any visual understanding of where the subjects even were.

I appreciate your constructive criticism regarding how the maps can be improved to focus more on the individual subject (like coloring the nation referred to in that particular article). However, just creating these maps takes an immense amount of time and research as they are. Perhaps some day I'll get the chance to do as you suggest. But until then, these maps will have to do.

Please undo your reversions and put the maps back on the pages you removed them from. Thank you in advance, User:Talessman Thomas Lessman 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

well, there is room for disagreement, I suppose, but I take it I am not the only editor to be less than thrilled with your maps. If the current maps don't show all the "Visigoth's world" (allthough I fail to see what part is missing from Image:Visigoth migrations.jpg), adding a map of all of Eurasia, Africa, Oceania and Australia isn't much of an improvement. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Visigoths: "not any significant information"
• 
  nah...
• 
  a little bit better
• 
  the bigger picture

I respectfully disagree with you and believe the maps should be re-instated on the pages. It really does help visitors to Wikipedia get a better understanding of the subjects they are reading about. Also gives them ideas of other articles to read. What other editors have a problem with the map?

Respectful disagreements aside, your illustration above was pretty funny, I've got to hand it to you! Do you have an "even bigger picture"? lol! Thomas Lessman Thomas Lessman 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do not want to appear rude. I appreciate your effort. I just happen to think your maps need more work. This is the opinion of a single editor. Another editor who objected to them is Jacob Haller (talk · contribs). What are my concerns? First, you need to crop them to something useful. It is simply pointless to show a thumbnail including Australia and South Africa for 500 AD. Look at the thumbnail above: There is litterally nothing to be made out except a topographic map of the eastern hemisphere. Then, these are supposed to be political maps, but their content is practically obscured by colourful topography and bathygraphy. have a look at Image:The world in 500 CE.PNG for a map of the world in AD 500 that is useful as a thumbnail. Also review the other examples in commons:Category:Maps_of_the_world_showing_history and commons:Category:Maps showing history. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Chakra-Bild auf Commons

Hi! Bezüglich des Löschantrages zu diesem Bild: Melanom hat das Bild nicht wegen der unklaren Beziehung zwischen dir und Roelli zum Löschen vorgeschlagen (der Teil lässt sich leicht durch ein OTRS-Ticket beheben), sondern wegen der Beziehung zwischen Roelli und dem Maler des Chakras, der ja die Rechte an dem Bild besitzt (siehe derivative work). Nun geh ich davon aus, dass das Chakra uralt (also der Maler vor über 70 Jahren gestorben ist), weshalb ich auch für behalten gestimmt habe, aber vielleicht würde es helfen, wenn du die Infobox beim Bild mit ein paar Details vervollständigen würdest, zB wo das Chakra ist, wann es circa gemalt wurde, usw. -- CecilK 08:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

achso. na dann, also dieses Chakra ist bestimmt mittelalterlich, und urheberrechtlich problemlos. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Done!

Most excellent work (now I pray it sticks) on the dystheism/misotheism article. I also hope I put the Barnstar in an acceptible place, if not I apologize. LoveMonkey 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you. I am not done yet, though, and help is welcome :) --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

als = Alemannisch or Albanian Tosk?

Hi, you might want to have a look at the discussion about the use of Category:User als-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comets and the swastika motif

Please see my reply to your posting at WP:COIN. You are in the best position to advise what to do next. You might also ask questions about the sourcing at WP:RSN, if you are so inclined. But there are probably grounds for an AfD nomination, provided enough people were interested in actually looking at the article. Occasionally some editors at the COI noticeboard will actually work over an article to remove POV and make it neutral, though they might find this one puzzling. If you do decide on AfD, it is not considered canvassing to announce that on the noticeboard. I will also notify User:Bkobres of the COIN listing. EdJohnston 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New NCERT books

Hi there! For your information Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Miso

Alright now dab we aint done yet. I think we can cover a break down of the various miso-s against the God or the Gods in the Misotheism article-conceptionally. I have listed on the talkpage some of the core arguments (only partially articulated). I was hoping for some help (aka critical observation). LoveMonkey 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian transliteration

Hi. I answered your remark in my own talk page, as usual. Švitrigaila 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Great article

For the article, James the Brother of Jesus

Thank you for expanding my reading list. Have a barnstar. --Ancheta Wis 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you -- it's not that I've seen the book myself, though... --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why that Friesian source is wrong

Poor Chaldean Cathlics, it must be terrible for them to use a Chaldo-Assyrian flag. I can only imagine the pain and resentment they feel by Assyrian nationalist labelling them as Assyrians, if it weren't for the fact that they themselves are Assyrian nationalist. Case in point, don't take this anti-Assyrian "source" as the holy truth, it's not like there are just a few Assyrian nationalists in the Syriac and Chaldean churches, we're talking about a majority here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:32 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

what are you even talking about? friesian.com (Kelley L. Ross) is completely neutral, and just like me stumbled over this childish issue because some indoctrinated kids were giving him grief. If you go out of your way to discuss how Ross is "wrong" on my talkpage, at least let me know how he is wrong. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral? Please. He knows nothing about this at all. It's obvious, even from his writing, that he has based a lot of what he has written on hearsay from his students, not actual facts. I agree with you that this dispute is very childish, but it's not us Assyrians who are ignorant about the facts. And by the way, he stated that modern Chaldean Catholics are direct descendants from the ancient Chaldeans. LOL. Yeah, isn't it funny, how the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic isn't even related to the old Chaldean Aramaic spoken in Babylon, and that virtually ALL Chaldean Catholics are from northern Mesopotamia, not southern Mesopotamia, and that we call the language Sōreth? Look, Ross isn't NPOV. He is totally POV about this, and he even admits himself he's not an expert on the subject. Have you read his old version by the way? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:20 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

you bore me, Elias. You are one of the most ideologically entrenched editors I've met, and you keep giving out judgements about "NPOV", apparently unaware of how grotesque this looks to any bystander. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:33 10 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE I am afraid. I promise I will also applaud you ad hominem, should you manage to be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with you, dab, is that you don't know anything about this subject, yet you act as if you do, by self-proclaiming yourself as "Mr. NPOV" but you still don't understand the subject because you haven't done enough research about it (obviously). Then when you have no answers left, you begin calling me stuff, as if it wasn't beside the point. Look, if you don't understand this subject, stop trying to act like an authority on it and respect the sources we are providing, unless you have better sources rejecting the validity of these historical sources. If you don't have academic serious sources presenting a real case, then stop accusing me of POV issues because you have no case whatsoever. And please, don't resort to lame ad hominem attacks on my character. That's really not helping your credibility. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:36 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

At least I understand Wikipedia policy. If you can present solid references for your claims ("large majority", "started 30-40 years ago", I'll be satisfied. What you are trying to do is waving around some references for one thing, and try to sneak in claims that have nothing to do with your reference. We are reporters. As long as you just accurately report what is in your sources we'll have no dispute. dab (𒁳) 06:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Well then, I'll get back to you with sources. It would help a lot if you presented what kind of issues you want cited (a bit more specific) so that I know what to look for, instead of just reverting back and forth. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:49 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to be collaborative. I have no interest in wasting time with editors who deliberately play dumb when challenged. Before you can address an objection, you have to make a minimal attempt at understanding its justification: this is what we mean by "editing in good faith". --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask the guy what stuff he wants cited, he responds by accusing me of playing dumb, and then he tells me I'm not collaborative enough. Dude, you're not the collaborative person here. Again, what do you want cited, be specific. If you reply with anything more about me personally, then you are the one who isn't collaborative here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:45 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I hope you aren't telling me you are not playing dumb. That would be disturbing indeed... Try to revisit Talk:Assyrian people and try to make sense of what Akhilleus and I have been trying to tell you then. If you cannot understand, try to get somebody to explain things to you. Maybe try a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dodging the question as usual. Well dab, I guess this means you don't want more sources cited. The problem with you and Akhilleus, is that you are totally beside the point. Selucid rule? Why is that even important to this issue? Why did you bring that up? It's not that I'm playing dumb, you are simply beside the point on this topic, and you don't know what you're talking about. That is why you have problem with this chart, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because you are focusing on the wrong issues. If you're going to bring up Selucid rule OUT OF NOWHERE, then you better explain WHY that is so important to include in the chart and why Selucid rule is related to this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:58 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you are the one pushing a pov. If you are happy to shut up, I am happy to hear no more sources cited. If you insist on continuing to push it, you will have to cite sources. It's simple. It's Wikipedia policy. Why are we having this discussion? 600 years of Seleucid and Sassanid rule is what is being ignored in your propaganda "timeline" at Image:Assyrianidentity.png. I will not discuss this any more. Redraw this chart properly, or stop wasting my time with it. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Sassanid rule, we were known as Assyrians, as proven by Asuristan. Under Seleucid rule we were known as Syrians.[2][3] That is the entire reason why the chart says "Roman/Greek/Persian rule ultimately changes Assyrian to Syrian", if you want me to redraw the chart and include these periods more specifically, I can do that, but then you'll just bring up something else to complain about. Calling it propaganda is so disingenuous of you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:46 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining about graphical distortion. Draw the chart to scale, and record ancient and medieval instances of aramaye alongside instances of suryaye. That's the long and short of it. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find me credible sources about aramaya alongside suryaya, not taken from aramnahrin/urhoy, I will include it, if you can cite it properly. I disregard everything written on those two sites, because they manipulate the content. Here's an example, can you find this quote in real documents? No, you can't. You only find it on urhoy. If you want to help out with sources, that is fine. Just bring me genuine sources, and I will include them into the equation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:56 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

fine. I can verify, for example, whether the Lexicon Syriacum has "aturaye: enemies" as they allege. I can tell you that if I find the reference is correct, I will be annoyed with your biased pedantry. If I find that they are wrong, I will obviously treat the rest of their references with more circumspection. Either way, the facts are

1. the Syriacs are divided into factions.
2. some call themselves "Aramaeans", some "Syrians", some even "Assyrians" (Aturaye)
3. you don't like this and would like to see them united under an "Assyrian" identity

your ideal may be very worthy, I have no opinion on that. What is non-negotiable is that Wikipedia will report on the fact that the Syriacs are divided, not on your utopia that they should not be. I am sorry they are divided, Elias, but Wikipedia is not the place to change this. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

fine. I can verify, for example, whether the Lexicon Syriacum has "aturaye: enemies" as they allege. — What are you talking about now? I can only find one quote about Lexicon Syriacum here and it has nothing to do with "aturaye: enemies". I can tell you that if I find the reference is correct, I will be annoyed with your biased pedantry. — I'm not biased. I can't find most of their quotes anywhere else, except their own site. Not even when I change Syriacs to Syrians and search again, can I find their quotes reproduced from other sites with more credibility.

Do you sometimes even look at the sites you diss? the suryoyo-oromoyo site has lexicografen Hassan Bar Bahlul (900-talet) skrev i sin syriska ordlista "atouraya = b, eldbaba" dvs "assyrier = fiende" -- this is a straightforward reference, and can be checked objectively in any edition of the Lexicon Syriacum. Their other references are equally straightforward. I don't know why you claim they make them up, have you verified any of them and found them incorrect? dab (𒁳) 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

---

When I search for the references by Herodotus, Strabo and Justinus found on Assyrianist sites, I find them on sites that pass WP:RS. You call this biased? I am obviously following what makes more sense. The alleged quotes I don't find anywhere except Urhoy and Aramnahrin, should I trust that? No, of course not. On the other hand, the quotes from Assyrianist sites I find on other reliable sites, makes a lot more sense.

1. Yes, I have never denied that we are divided. Even Simo Parpola acknowledges this in his article (page 18).
2. Yes, that is represented in the chart. Why are you pointing this out? That exists in the chart already.
3. Of course, just like some Aramaeanists want to unite us under the Aramaean identity.

The reason why we're not buying into the Aramaean identity is because neither Chaldean Catholics, nor Church of the East (Nestorians), have ever cared about an Aramaean identity. Not even amongst themselves (i.e. the Syriac Orthodox Christians) is the Aramaean identity that popular and meets lots of resistance from Assyrian nationalists within their own Church (same story with Chaldean Catholics). The Assyrian identity is the largest within all of our Syriac Churches. So it's obviously the closest identity at hand. Now, the chart in itself, is simply reporting on all our identities. It is simply reflecting the reality of it: the Assyrian identity is the largest one if we exclude that we're all Syriacs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:42 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

By the way: some call themselves "Aramaeans", some "Syrians", some even "Assyrians" (Aturaye) — Those who call themselves Aramaeans always call themselves Aramaeans together with Syrians (or Syriacs). They never call themselves Aramaeans only. They are also Suryoyo. For instance, you can watch the Aramaeanists in Sweden, shrieking Suryoye here. Their team is called Syrianska. The Assyrian faction is also Suryoyo. The only difference is that we are of the opinion that Suryoyo means Assurayu, whilst they think it means Oromoyo. Do you understand now how the situation is? And like Chaldean said, the Aramaeanists are mostly find in the diaspora, with some minor representation in the Middle East. That is why Aramaye is small in the chart. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:49 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

who is "we" and why should Wikipedia be interested in what "you" want? You can cover the Assyrian infighting by citing academic discussions, never mind what "you" think. Parpola's paper is a beginning, but Parpola discusses a question of etymology, and touches on this topic only in passing. Now I would really prefer to keep this childish discussion off my talkpage, and address the topics themselves, on the relevant article talkpages. No more "we", no more arguments from alleged insider knowledge, just WP:RS, ok? --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, one last response. "We" as in the Assyrian faction within the Syriacs (you know, the Assyrian faction which you think consists of me only). Parpola isn't just discussing a question of etymology. Anyway, have you verified that Lexicon Syriacum reference you were talking about? The only reference I've been able to find so far, outside of Urhoy, is this:

• Urhoy version: Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs.[4]
• Actual version: Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. Ashur lived at the city Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans. Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians.[5]

See how they're manipulating the sources? They are taking it entirely out of context. They're using a Son of Shem representation as some historical fact. Their entire identity is based on religious faith, not historical accuracy. If you can't spot the Aramaeanist bias now, then you're not neutral. And for the record, the Greeks called the region which had been known as Aram, Syria, not the Aramaeans. The Greeks called the Assyrians, Syrians. Anyway, case in point: their "Aramaya" identity is false and based on misconception. Now we can continue this on the talk pages where it belongs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:32 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I don't read that suryoyo-oromoyo site. Its horrible colours hurt my eyes. What I've read from it though, is very laughable. It looks like some kid put it together (the Swedish content of it that is). Totally unacademic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:36 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

So how's it going, dab? Have you verified that Lexicon Syriacum reference yet? I decided to verify one of the alleged refs on the fanatical suryoyo-oromoyo site:

samma författare har ännu ett citat i sitt verk Geografi (bok 1 kap2 nr34): "De som kallar sig arameer de kallar vi för syrier"

They're asserting that that Strabo (who called the Assyrians "Syrians," in Book 1, Chapter 2, Number 34, stated that "those who call themselves Aramaeans, we call them Syrians." Well, it just so happens that I can't find this alleged quote. Don't take my word for it though, look it up yourself:

• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1B1*.html (Book 1, Chapter 2 begins from Number 38)
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/1A*.html (Book 1, Chapter 1, number 34, no such things as either Aramaeans or Syrians).

I still wonder why you think I'm POV, when I'm actually, in fact, NPOV, who don't buy Benne's and other Oromoyo fanatics' bullshit. Any Aramaeanist site from now on, should not pass WP:RS. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:31 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that suryoyo-oromoyo uses the exact same rhetoric as Benne does, calling Syria = Assyria a "disputed theory". It seems to me, the Oromoyo fanatics, are using some sort of propaganda which they're indoctrinating each other with. Either way, their false propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, because it's not the least academic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Did you know, did ya know, did ya know, that you created a did you know?

On 10 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--IvoShandor 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is at least one of the qualifications for the User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. If you could point toward any GA and FA work you've had, I would be more than happy to nominate you. John Carter 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I am pretty much boycotting the "GA" bureaucracy, and I honestly don't know if I have any official "GAs" under my belt. Under "FA", there is at least JRRT, and perhaps one or two others. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

TYR

During your 2-day editing frenzy of the 'Tyr' page you removed my pronunciation because it was "English". We are looking at an English website and unless you can provide the "Natural" pronunciation I'd prefer it if you allow my pronunciation (rhymes with tier) to stay. You may also just add the "Natural" pronunciation and leave the "English" one with a note indicating that it's "English". Thank you very much. ·:RedAugust 23:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

what frenzy? Why would we give pronunciation hints for English words? Precisely because this is an English language website, we need to give pronunciation for words that are not English, not for those that are. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganymed and Prometheus

Hi, I saw you had moved off the translations and texts, quite right, but when those articles were written these texts were not in wikisource. Did you send them there, or have they just gone into buried wikipedia? I wouldn't know how to send them there myself, but perhaps someone else had already supplied similar. Cheers, Sedgefoot 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

European ethnic groups

Hello. A new user User:Assary has started selectively expanding some of your wikilinks by copying and pasting parts of peoples of the Caucasus (along with the errors there) and Finno-Ugric peoples into the article. These selective additions have destroyed part of the internal logic of the page. I cannot reason with this user who seems to have some possibly nationalistic point to make. They seem intent on turning the article into a rambling list and somehow have not understood some of the cautious remarks in the original text. I have seen this copying-pasting approach before; it doesn't seem to be what the WP is about. Cheers, Mathsci 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, this sort of thing should just be reverted. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Salian Frankish Mythology

Hello - I've noticed that you are active in articles dealing with Frankish and related history, and are a long-established Wikipedia editor. I wouldn't mind your input on the Salian Franks Mythology article - a gentleman by the name of Rokus wrote the article, and I tried not to step on his toes in a) avoiding editing his article myself, and b) giving him the titles of books by the most esteemed scholars of Frankish history today so that he himself could gain the knowledge that would enable a verifiable article (but I have clearly annoyed him greatly). What's the Wikipedia protocol for editing another's article in attempting to make it verifiable and more neutral? I'd appreciate your advice; I'm quite new to Wikipedia itself, and although I've expertise in the area of Frankish history, I understand that Wikipedia is a more co-operative effort than writing, for instance, for an established reference work. Thanks in advance - I have a feeling that my repeated requests for citations have driven Rokus to the brink of fury, but I was of the understanding that Wikipedia actually REQUIRES citations... And I really do feel that to call the article after Salian Franks is too narrow, with far too little information on just the Salian Franks as opposed to all Franks. I suppose I would like to feel that making this a cause is worth the hassle, as I don't believe Rokus is amenable to discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's only I who rub him the wrong way...? --Almirena 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 is well known as a national mysticist editor. The article should probably just be merged into Continental Germanic mythology. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Vergina_sun.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Vergina_sun.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[Dharmic Tradition]

Hi, The Dharmic Religion page that was decided to be a disambig page by consensus is being re-instated once again. Sugest you have a look there.--Anish 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD: Origin of religion

Hello! I was just tidying up some of the indentation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion, and I noticed you had comments in a couple places; one advocating a speedy keep, and then further down suggesting that a merge might be better. Should the older opinion be annotated or struck out to help the closing admin? I didn't want to do something like that without speaking to you about it first. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Afds are discussions, not votes. I react to opinions of other editors, trying to find the best solution. "speedy keep" does not preclude redirection. Redirection is not properly something that needs to go on Afd. It seems obvious that this article should not be deleted, but merged elsewhere, and I am confident the closing admin will come to a similar conclusion, this is really a no-brainer, if I may say so. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I'm guessing your feeling pretty frustrated with User:Muntuwandi, but I think he was asking an honest question. Was it really necessary to attack this user's analytical abilities? Wouldn't it be better to work with him/her? It is a major step forward that he is even asking the question "which parts" rather than just insisting that this is the "best" account. Egfrank 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not assuming bad faith, but I have little interest in patient debate once an editor has shown he is not on top of the topic he insists on debating. My harsh reaction was due to his revert warring over the article, not due to the question itself. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Syriacs revisited

As you have noticed, EliasAlucard continues to insert his erroneous and POV chart into the Assyrian people article. Since the deadlock has been going on for more than a year now, I believe an expert on the Syriac people should be consulted. I hope you support this suggestion, and request you to keep an eye out for the article. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you really should look up what this guy is talking about. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:14 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue

Dab said: I will ask you once again, politely, to refrain from moving articles around without discussion, especially repeating moves that have been reverted before, or articles that have a history of discussion of the proper title. All you are doing is wasting other people's time. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your polite demeanor. Which articles are you talking about in particular? If you could clarify for me the salient points of discussion we may be able to yield a mutually satisfying resolution.

Respectfully B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You notice when you are reverted, don't you? Then click on the "talk" tab and explain yourself. If you fail to convince other editors, you may have to live with consensus being against you. You can try and build a separate Modern runic magic and discourse‎, but unless you cite solid literature, it will be put up for deletion on grounds of WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning from Dharmic traditions

Dab said: your behaviour is deteriorating. Please don't copy-paste entire articles to my talkpage. Take your time to review Wikipedia:policy (and Wikipedia:Etiquette while you're at it), and try to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Pull your own weight. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Have u read what I have included and sourced? The sources might not be print, but they are sourced. If they are not worked into a version acceptable to all parties I will continue to revert. I appreciate that pasting the entire article is not polite, but neither is deleting my referenced and cited work in a wholesale fashion.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome to merge stuff from your version into Indian religions, respecting the existing revision and input and concerns from others. Why don't you go ahead and work on that quietly instead of annoying your peers? --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take your lead. Conflict creates dialogue. QUESTION: how did u link to a specific version of an article? I would appreciating you learning me! Then I wouldn't need to paste the whole article in your Talk page.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you are really serious about this aren't you? It is difficult to deal with the trolls, but the genuinely poor in spirit can be even more exasperating. Will you please leave stuff alone now and work on whatever it is you want to discuss? How about you learn about policy first? Then, about WP:ENC? Then, consult WP:RS on whatever you are interested in, and then come back and edit? I am not your private teacher, and I ask you once again to pull your own weight. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

arrogance.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"arrogance" as in "asking you to respect project fundamentals"? Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. I am afraid that if you find WP is too elitist for you, you have very, very low standards of "elitism" compared to the world at large. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dyeus.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dyeus.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jainism and non-creationism

Please see my remarks on talk page of Jainism and non-creationism with reference to your merge proposal.--Anish 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have decided to seek informal mediation on the case. If you are interested the case is open at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I consider myself fully competent, and it is really the same to me whether I discuss a given topic with you or a designated mediator. My position will be completely independent of whom I happen to be addressing. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an invitation, participation is voluntary. However we do need material available for mediation. So I have recreated the page. Muntuwandi 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

do not recreate deleted pages like that. The active discussion is (and should be) on DRV. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents pages

Hi. Please see, and add to, the summarized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. I've tried discussion with individuals, the Village pump, an RfC, an email to enwiki-l, and contacting admins like Radiant, and admin Coredesat tried an AfD of [Lists of overviews], all to no avail. I'm out of ideas, and would really appreciate some help achieving rational consensus.

Placing some or all of those pages in any of the 3 suggested namespaces (main, project, portal) each has its own problems. It isn't simple! --Quiddity 17:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with the concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, and agree with you (if I understand your position) that List of overviews should be Wikipedia:Overview, and that Lists of topics and Lists of basic topics should also be in projectspace. What I don't agree with is trying to force discussion (or change?) by putting an article message box at the top of these pages, which is disconcerting to the reader (who is, and should be, unaware of internal disputes about where pages are located).

May I suggest starting with one page (perhaps the Overview), and proposing (on the talk page) that it be moved, and see what kind of response you get? (I don't think "consistency across the entire navbar" is a winning argument, by the way; that's why I think a page-by-page discussion is better.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. {{ambox}}es are found on literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of pages, and they have the straightforward function of informing the reader of an ongoing debate. Placing an ambox on a page is standard practice if you want to raise an issue. I would never argues for "consistency across the entire navbar", and I very much agree that there is no way around a page-by-page discussion. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Amboxes are normally for things that an individual editor can fix, as was the template you posted. The only times that they inform the reader of an ongoing debate (AfD, merge, etc.), they point to a discussion where the reader can contribute. That's not at all the situation here. What is needed here is a consensus - otherwise, you or I could just fix the page by ourselves.

As an analogy, there have been (I believe) occasional discussions about moving the Main Page, which is in mainspace, to projectspace. I'm pretty confident that if an administrator put, on the Main Page, the same template you did, it would come down pretty quickly.

If there isn't the energy here to conduct discussions on a page-by-page basis, then perhaps the best thing is to simply drop the matter. I don't really see what harm the pages are doing where they are now - yes, there is a lack of consistency, but unless that inconsistency is actually leading to problems - bot failures or reprogramming, constant need to remove other misplaced pages due to editor confusion, etc., then maybe it's not that big a deal. (Again, I'd support moving the pages unless someone could show that moving them would break a lot of things, because I have nothing against consistency, but I also acknowledge that tradition and inertia are strong forces that have to be taken into consideration.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In my book, three pages should be moved, List of topics, Lists of basic topics and List of overviews, namely because they index Wikipedia "topics", viz. they are self-reference, and I placed a template on each of them. I fail to see how this is more disruptive than your generic {{NPOV}} template, which is hardly something that an individual editor can fix more easily than clicking the "move" tab. The "Main Page" discussion is a dead horse, there is long-standing consensus to leave it where it is, and there is no ongoing discussion on this. Thus, it would clearly qualify as WP:POINT to slap a template on Main Page over this. I am sorry, perhaps I do not understand your point, but I insist that I have used the templates precisely in the way they are intended to be used. Why don't we just debate this for another couple of days, establish some sort of consensus, and then act accordingly. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody except The Transhumanist (and recently Phoebe) have agreed that those 3 pages (plus list of glossaries) in particular probably belong in projectspace. If you've read his list of reasons at Talk:List of overviews#Move to Wikipedia:List of overviews, and are willing to debate with him when/if he reverts, then go ahead and move them or anything else. I would describe The Transhumanist as an extreme inclusionist/eventualist, and I'm quite tired of discussing list-policy minutiae with him.

However, be aware that these decisions might have numerous repercussions. See the featured Lists of mathematics topics, and it's associated List of mathematics articles for the very tip of the iceberg. There are a hell of a lot of those. Which is why I'm trying to help a consensus develop, before any drastic decisions are made.

As for the discussion above, I'd suggest that John was possibly just meaning that it's particularly bad to have giant cleanup tags on pages that look so "official", and that are only 2 clicks away via the site sidebar. Anyway, not a big deal, or relevant to the topic.

I hope all of that is clear-ish. Ask if it isn't. I'm trying to not clutter up my explanations with all the tangential issues! --Quiddity 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. this is why I insist on adding {{self-reference}} pending such a consensus: to draw attention to the problem. I haven't even been aware of this up to now. I don't mind if I do not get my way throughout, but I do object to being accused of "POINT" for pointing out valid issues with valid ambox templates. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can figure out the appropriate place to discuss this issue, and a way to gather sufficient feedback, please do so. My methods of explaining things seem to result in silence :( Also, I have time constraints for the next week or so. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merges involving Ritual slaughter

If you disagree with these proposed mergers please discuss your views at Talk:Ritual slaughter rather than simply removing the merge tags. Other editors spoke in favor of them. Ritual slaughter was made into a disambig page only a few days ago, and it is by no means set in stone that it should remain that way. If you believe these articles should be reorganized in a different way not involving a merger, please bring this up. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the templates on technical grounds: it is not possible to merge articles into a disambiguation page. Turn it into an article first, and then we'll see about merging. --dab (𒁳) 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talessman's maps

Hi Dbachmann! If you've noticed, user Talessman has been adding many of his self-made maps (Eastern Hemisphere maps) to various Wikipedia articles (regardless of the fact that some of them already has maps on it). It seems as though he wants to add all the maps he made to every single article available. Those maps are not particularly well-made (just black-line drawings basically), and distorts the quality of the many articles that appear in it (stretches the length or spaces). It kind of also suggests self-promotion in a way... I noticed that you have removed some of the maps, but he basically is adding it back. Is there any way that you can help.--Balthazarduju 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already talked to him. I was hoping he would go and work on them more. If he just keeps adding them, we'll just have to keep removing them, I suppose, except perhaps for one or two "century" articles where they may have some use. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, nobody appointed either of you "editor-in-chiefs" of Wikipedia. I made these maps to help people get an understanding of the subject they are reading about, as well as the world that subject lived in. If you don't like the maps, maybe you should try explaining WHY, instead of being an idiot and just calling them "worthless". And if you keep going to EVERY page they are on and arbitrarily deleting them, I'll have no choice but to continue undoing your vandalism.

Most people would be willing to offer constructive criticism to help improve the maps if they think they need improvement. You guys seem to think you're above that and just say they are wrong and arbitrarily delete them from every page they are on. How are they wrong? What gives you the right to just criticise and delete them from every article? Keep removing them, and I'll keep re-adding them. There's no harm to having one of these maps on any articles, and the articles are not "your" articles. If you can't tolerate readers actually learning something, maybe you should not be on Wikipedia? Thomas Lessman 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did explain what was wrong with them. You didn't listen. In view of the fact that nobody appointed you "cartographer-in-chief", may I suggest that you try and deliver quality if you want your maps featured? As a first step, for the love of Mercator, base your maps on a blank map, not on a 24 bit orgy of colourful topography. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with showing the mountains, rivers, and other geographical features? I have a "blank" map available, and it contains the geographical features, minus the country names and borders. That was part of the point in making them in the first place; maps without geographical features don't show readers nearly as much accurate information about where the subject lived. You've mentioned that the maps show "too much information"? Well isn't THAT a crime on Wikipedia? We sure don't want people getting TOO much information, do we? As I stated before, if you have a problem with the maps, then you need to explain what that problem is and explain how to fix that problem. But just arbitrarily going to every page they are on and deleting them is vandalism. Unless of course, you wouldn't mind if someone went to every page you've edited and watch them revert your edits, saying they were "worthless"... Thomas Lessman 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to be polite, with no effect. I have no interest in discussing details of graphical design with you. Some of yoru maps would be usable if you cropped them, e.g. showing Europe, so that the legend would become visible. Just showing thumbnails of Eurasia is pointless. Btw, Wikipedia also discourages watermarking in user-created maps, and your maps should be cropped to avoid the watermark in any case. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay DB, as per our compromise, I started editing and uploading some cropped maps (eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NE_600ad.jpg). I'm working on other edits as time permits. Can we go ahead and revert the original 600AD map to show the full map (including Australia and South Africa, since they were in the map), and use the newly cropped maps on the article pages instead? That way, the original map stays as it was (as the full, original image), but only shows on a few pertinent articles like the yearly or century articles and/or for major powers, whereas the newly cropped maps show on lesser powers articles, but also link to the original East-Hem maps for those curious for the bigger picture or further reference. Thomas Lessman 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He just couldn't stop. User Talessman is making "condensed" version of the "same" map and again distributing them all over articles (any random article). He may not agree with this, but the maps he made just simply isn't up to the standards that some of the articles requires. For example, the map ([6]) he just added to the Byzantine Empire article, shows the empire at its greatest extent; yet the map is (in my opinion) a horrible contrast to the other maps in the article. The weird purple color, the green background, the hand-drawn lines, all looks out of place with the rest of them. The article is a "Feature Article"! Check the Revision history, there is a nice map ([7]) shows the empire's greatest boundary after Justinian I's conquest, but it was replaced with his map. I hope I'm not alone on this, but I think his "self-made" maps are of subpar quality.--Balthazarduju 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitanni

Dear Dbachman, What is it about the Mitanni article that attracts so many fringe POV's? Today, there is someone claiming that the Mitannians were ancestors of the Kurds, instead of the Armenians! One wouldn't imagine that Mitanni was a controversial topic like Akhenaten or the Great Pyramids of Giza. This is quite annoying. IMO, the real Mitannians disappear from history once the Hittite Empire was destroyed with the arrival of the Sea Peoples....just as the 10 lost tribes of Israel were lost to history when the Assyrians conquered ancient Israel in 722 BC and they were deported from their lands. Ancient Near Eastern peoples disappear so many times in history that its almost laughable to push a POV that the Mitannians, who antedated the Hebrews, were really ancestors of such and such a people or race,

I wonder why some people seem to have an agenda on Mitanni suddenly? I don't understand this obsession on such an ancient state? Moreover, historians haven't even been able to locate the capital of Mitanni even in the 21st century to draw any firm conclusions on the Mitannians except that they were Hurrians. I think some people want to rewrite history because they can do so on this web site. Any views? Leoboudv 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

the answer is semiprotection. US colleges are full of second generation expatriates with no historical background knowledge, and the exile's zeal for aggrandizing his nation. We have the tools to protect Wikipedia from such fringecruft, and we should apply them. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:demiurge

Dab these edits [8] are not inline with verifiablity. Please come to the article talkpage. LoveMonkey 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahapuruxiya Dharma

The "x" is due to the phonetic pronunciation of the sibilants in Assamese language. The language of the religion is not Sanskrit, but Assamese language. I feel the edits you performed are unwarranted. Could you please revert them? Thanks. Chaipau 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

done. the article as it stood made no attempt whatsoever to explain or justify the 'x'. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an effort to use this style consistently in all Wikipedia:WikiProject_Assam articles, where appropriate. This is mentioned here: Assamese language#Phonetics (look at "In Romanization" for velar voiceless fricatives). There are a few remaining ones in the above article that I shall revert over time. Thanks! Chaipau 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice essay

I enjoyed reading this. Not pleasant reading, really, but very stimulating. People should pay more attention to the broad sweeps of history, rather than the short-term history. It reminds me of the writings of Arthur C. Clarke on the future, though you don't go quite as far as Olaf Stapledon did in Last and First Men. Carcharoth 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

it is inspired by the interminable and mind-boggling "ethnic" stupidity so commonly found on Wikipedia. Before I came across people like Subhash Kak, I simply had no conception of just how well educated literacy and abysmal stupidity go together. Not to mention poor buggers like Martiros Kavoukjian who probably were never even given a chance to realize the nature of their "knowledge". --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)

I wonder whether you think I'm barking up the right, or the wrong, tree over there. If you haven't given up on the subject, your input would be valued either way. Wareh 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gods

I see you moved Gods to Gods (disambiguation). No real issue with that, other than I couldn't see how people were supposed to get to Gods (disambiguation) from Gods, which you redirected to Deity. I've added a dab template to Deity, but I'm not sure it's worded right, I just copied the one off the top of God. Also, someone has suggested at Talk:Gods (disambiguation), which Talk:Gods redirects to, that Gods redirect to List of Deities instead. Idea has some merit, but since you only recently pulled the move, thought I'd chew it over with you rather than being bold. Steve block Talk 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your concern. Yes, this is a somewhat complicated matter, owing to WP's "auto-capitalisation" which prevents us from distinguishing "God" and "god". dab (𒁳) 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see how that creates problems, yeah. But what do you think on where Gods should redirect to then, and should the talk page redirect to the same target? Steve block Talk 10:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the present solution of gods as a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got tied up in something else and forgot about this. I'm perhaps not making myself very clear here. I have no issue with the page at Gods (disambiguation). I am asking whether you think it is better to redirect Gods to Deity or to instead redirect it to Gods (disambiguation), and also, whether the talk page of Gods should redirect to the same page as the article Gods does. I hope that helps clear up any confusion we seem to be encountering here. Steve block Talk 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Martiros Kavoukjian

Sorry, Dbachmann, what are you doing? even if you're an admin it never means you can add unsourced info to the article, call a large number of unrelated to each other Armenian academians, Professors, Dr's and writers ... nationalists, and change the direct quotation added by me to an OR explanation of the same source (why, do you think the direct quotation is not better, than anyones understanding?). also you called academian, prof. Rafael Ishkhanian an "Armenian nativist"... sorry? you know what the Wiki rules asking about discrimination of the sources by their national-ethnic ancestry? for your info, the same Ishkhanian was a soldier-internationalist of Sovet army liberating some countries of Europe during WWII [9]. your editions must be sourced, or sorry, but they are going to be a subject of arbitration as an OR with the elements of anti-Armenianism! Ill be grateful if you answer at the article's talk page. Andranikpasha 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, you seem to overlook that I removed unsourced information, I didn't add any. I fail to see what Mr. Ishkhanian's soldierly exploits have to do with this. --dab (𒁳) 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I have nothing against the deletion of unsourced info! I also marked maybe we can delete this article before we will have more facts of notability via Google (its another object of discussion). The only thing surely is not OK that you called a large number of Armenian professors etc. authors of "nationalist literature" without any sources, and 'called acad. Ishkhanian "Armenian native" which is prohabited by Wiki rules (here are examples of your addings [10][11]). Sometimes fighting against nationalism became something very similar to the national discrimination and the same nationalism.

Do you know one of the famous characters of "stalinism": "I never read this book but I read a review so I condemn this book ("Doctor Zhivago") and his author Boris Pasternak". Noone of us ever read Kavoukjian's work but you added Pseudohistory category just cuz a review criticized it... sorry, its not enough! The only thing I want to ask: in the case if you really hadnt sources maybe to stand by Armenian articles for a while (surely other admin's will watch them) and start to edit them after more info will be finded! Anyways thanks for the reply! Andranikpasha 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I identified Ishkhanian as a nativist, not a "native", please try to pay a little bit of attention before complaining. "Nativist" is intended to summarize his idea that "Armenians were the aborigines of the Armenian plateau who have been living there continuously since the fourth millennium B.C.E at the latest", which, in the light of mainstream academic opinion, is so much nationalist bullshit. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this idea is not a "nationalist bullshit" but a widely accepted by Armenian and foreign scolars (f.e. von Luchan, acad. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, Dr David Lang, etc.) version (we're not judges here!). For your info this "nationalist" version (asking the ancestors of Armenians were the aborigens of Armenian Highland) is accepted by Armenian Encyclopedia and all the "Armenian History" school classbookes (even the radical supporters of "Phrygian hypothesys" like Dyakonov recognized that among the ancestors of Armenians there were aborigens of Armenian plateu, who according to them, were mixed with Mushks)! Pls be more tolerant while discussing different historical views (especially if only source is a anclear POV). Its hard for me while beeing one of the opposers of Ishkhanian's idea's fight against his classification as a "nationalist" (which you done earlier). We must differ "views on Armenia's ancient history" and Nationalism. Ishkhanyan was criticized many times not only by nationalists, but also by Armenian intellectuals for his writings "against Armenian interests", obvious "pro-Turkic" ideas, "anti-Andranikism" (it was his opinion, Im not going to call him an "pseudohistorian" or ask to ban his books, I just oppose such a POV, anyways I respect any prominent historian's research freedom!!), he condemned some important historical decisions of prev. Armenian heroes and leaders including Armenia's pro-Russian orientation, etc. And after all he became ..."an Armenian nationalist". I'll be grateful if you call at least 5 Armenian "not-nationalist" historians who arent agree with so-called "Armenian nativist" version. I know only one! If you too, and going to call all ever existed Armenian historians (starting from Movses Khorenatsi) "nationalists", then Im repeating my words on insourced anti-Armenianism. For me the unsourced calling of all the prominent Armenian historians of Ancient history "nationalists" is nothing, than a obvious fact of biased explanation of Armenian (and Armenological- Glinka, Lang, Samuelian, etc.) science and Ethnic discrimination. Sorry and thank you! Andranikpasha 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ffs, I didn't call Ishkhanian a nationalist, I called him a nativist. Now please stop filling my talkpage with offtopic rants. If you care about that article so much, feel free to actually fix it. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Here is the fact [12] of calling him a nationalist. And I see the same problems (a fight against unsourced "nationalism") with other Armenia-related articles too. Sorry again (I asked for a discussion at Kavoukjian's talk page, you didnt answer) and good luck! Andranikpasha 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FOR CRYING out loud, I called Kavoukjian a nationalist, which he is dyed-in-the-woolly, not Ishkhanian . Will you now go away please? dab (𒁳) 12:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian articles

Dbachmann, I asked you to stand by Armenia-related articles because of your unsourced additions. Pls let Armenian users themselvs decide what is ok and what is not as surely there are a lot of less biased admins will check them. You're now supporting I person which is currently banned from "Armenia" and who sended me personal abuses in Armenian... after all you're talkin' about does "shame his own nation by his behaviour, a true anti-patriot". Pls try to be more tolerant to the Armenian users (if even they are blocked it doesnt give rights to call anyone an anti-patriot and shame of the nation). Sorry Im disturbing here again I just want to ask that Im going to ask for arbitration on your Armenia-related contributions. Andranikpasha 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

feel free to do that. --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a notice

Just in the case you hadn't recognized him, the anon. account you've been dealing with at PCT is no other than the old indef. blocked User:Nasz.--Aldux 13:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

what an (Personal attack removed) -->. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A few issues

Hey db, Mittani is constantly added to Template:History of Armenia by an anon ip, most likely ararat arev. Can you semi protect it and remove Mittani? An anon ip is also reverting and adding bs to Proto-Armenian language, that needs to be cleaned and semi protected as well.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

done. what a (Personal attack removed) -->. Not only does he shame his own nation by his behaviour, he also disrupts free improvement of Armenia related articles. A true anti-patriot, if you ask me. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, I got better things to do than babysit all those articles. Thanks!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model

My page on the Fundamental Dilator was deleted even though it has been published in two books: one on Cosmology and another on Hadron Physics. I would appreciate if I were given a reason for the summary deletion.

Thanks,

MP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny2292000 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you recreated an article that was deleted before, as patent nonsense. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bachmann,

This is the comment I made on the page. Could you please address it?

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Not a Hoax.

The editor of the list-server in question did not peer-review my work. He just made his ill-informed judgement based upon a few paragraphs. It doesn't justify repeating the same mistake. The theory has been published twice - once in a Cosmology book shown below and another in a Hadron Physics book to be released by the end of October. Neither one of them are the result of a self-publishing initiative and both are peer-reviewed.

[http://worldcatlibraries.org/isbn/819021909X Quantization in astrophysics, Brownian motion and supersymmetry: by Florentin Smarandache; V Christianto]

[Amazon Description of the Book Contents http://www.amazon.com/Quantization-Astrophysics-Brownian-Motion-Supersymmetry/dp/819021909X/ref=sr_1_1/002-0388091-0808040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174235841&sr=8-1#sipbody] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny2292000 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your article was deleted following this discussion. If you want to challenge this decision, go to WP:DRV. --dab (𒁳) 20:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those links show that an article written by a Marco Pereira was published, proving only that an article was published. Unfortunately, I couldn't find "Hypergeometrical Universe Model" among the links. It's a bit hard to believe that the article in the PDF file was published though, as it's incredibly poorly written. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

also, we don't write a new article for every physics paper published. If (if) the article contains notable contributions, it could bear mention at quantization or some other relevant topic. In order to deserve an entire dedicated article, Mr. Pereira will first need to attract an entirely other quality of attention. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

James Schwarzenbach

If one writes a good article, you don't have to call spades spades. The only (unreferenced?) indication you give is his publishing house. The Times said he "gradually emerged as a conservative elitist, favouring firm government, limits to growth and adherence to traditional values." That is a world away from what you are calling him. Intangible2.0 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

you will have noted that I do cite a biographer now, who calls him a racist, xenophobic, antisemitic nationalist. I don't think that there is much room for disagreement in this respect. I will not go as far as calling him a Neo-Nazi: he published Neo-Nazi literature, to be sure, but he never went as far as outing himself as one. His convictions, though, are in fact Neo-Nazism or Neo-Fascism by any other name. dab (𒁳) 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find some English source material, and there is a 1979 dissertation from Yale [13] on Überfremdung which poses: "Is Schwarzenbach a fascist, a xenophobe, a racist--and are his followers? Unless one assumes that anyone who would support the Ueberfremdung initiatives merits such characterizations prima facie, the question cannot be dismissed as having an obvious answer...By 1964, in a foreword he wrote to a book published by his Thomas Verlag, he had come to express the view that "Hitler himself was a conscious and not merely an unconscious agent" of "Soviet Communism and Zionist nationalism," since the circumstances of his defeat enabled the Communists to take over Eastern Europe." The author of the dissertation does not find Schwarzenbach obsessively xenophobic, quoting Schwarzenbach as saying: "We see no threat of Ueberfremdung from the foreigners on our streets, be they Spaniards, Greeks, Calabrians or even Negroes. Real problems only arise when we must try to integrate into our political and social community, on a continuing basis, a large number of foreigners who came to our country merely as laborers." The author calls Thomas Verlag a Catholic publishing house. Catholicism and anti-semitism are of course not mutual exclusive. Anyways, the above quote from 1964 tells me more about Schwarzenbach than whatever Buomberger is using as adjectives to describe him. Intangible2.0 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

indeed, and I suggest you add this to the article. I think that in the light of his idea that Hitler was a conscious agent of Zionism I rest my case. You also got to love the "or even Negroes" part. Schwarzenbach wasn't a Nazi. He was a cranky antisemite and racist. Any discussion of his views will include the adjectives fascist, xenophobic and antisemitic, but the subject's crankiness will invariably lead to various qualifications. Do feel free to work on this further. Schwarzenbach's disciple Ulrich Schlüer is more sane. He is undoubtedly a racist and a xenophobe, but he lacks the attributes of whacky antisemitism. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of Religiosity and intelligence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ==

Ritual slaughter

Hi! Combining these other articles with Ritual slaughter was proposed as part of the request for comments discussion at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter. You are welcome to oppose combining them, but do not remove merge tags while discussion is underway, these can only be removed once consensus is obtained or lack of consensus becomes clear. This in not the first time you have done this. I understand you are a long-standing editor with many edits, but I nonetheless need to warn you that a unilateral removal of a properly-suggested merge tag while discussion is underway violates WP:CONSENSUS. You are welcome to give your reasons for opposing the merge as part of the discussion. I understand that currently most of the edit history is on Bans on ritual slaughter and there is disagreement even among those who support combining about whether a merge is the best way to combine these articles in a way that ends up with a single article named Ritual slaughter. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Ritual slaughter was turned into a disambiguation page by a bold editor only about a week ago. The change has been disputed. Whether it will remain depends on the outcome of the discussion. This is a matter for discussion and consensus, and your opinion that it should remain a disambiguation page is valid and relevant but needs to be added to the discussion rather than being implemented unilaterally. Tags pointing to a discussion on combining articles are required by policy. If you believe a different type of tag is more appropriate to this particular discussion let me know, but removing all tags is not acceptable. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, what are you talking about? Ritual slaughter used to be a redirect. Now stop blathering about a "discussion" and get to work on the article. Nobody at all will object to your sitting down and actually writing an article about ritual slaughter, alright? Wikipedia isn't all process and debate, sometimes it is also necessary to write an actual article. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rigveda

Hi — Sorry to have upset you with my attempt to use orange as with other Hinduism-related templates. I hope the formatting and categorization met with your approval. Sardanaphalus 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the colour scheme unbearably jarring. I am doubtful of such marking of territory by colour scheme in general, but I suppose it is no big deal. --dab (𒁳) 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Nuclear Warfare

Further information: Lonar crater and Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts

I've found this interesting debate. Ancient Nuclear Warfare BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth including? "Lonar crater" atomic explosion gets 100+ hits.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this article, Lonar Lake, India: An Impact Crater in Basalt. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You never fail to amaze. Just when I thought I had heard the crankiest, there is a whole other level opening up :) --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, why does one always need to approach the world with a closed eye? I don't normally conclude reasoning before I actually analyze the situation from all corners. Some things might be true. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So, far this crater does not look to me anything more than a hypervelocity impact of either a comet or meteorite. But, yes I am always curious to know if there could be anything more than that. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you my eyes are wide open. sometimes in exasperation, but wide open nevertheless. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting find

I have just discovered an amazing book written by the most respected and cited Armenologist of all time, Nicholas Adontz. :, Histoire d'Arménie : les origines, du Xe siècle au VIe siècle au VIe (a. J.C.), Paris 1946. I got the original French and the translated Armenian text from 1972. In it Adontz basically debunks the whole Armani nonsense with very strong words. "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia." He says Armani mentioned by Sargon I (Assyrian one) is a different form of Khalman. He says the Armani and its King Madakina mentioned by Naram-Sin should be located in Northern Syria. Khalvani=Aleppo. There's much more. This book basically has everything to debunk these myths. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

that's interesting, although I suppose I am prepared to admit Armani could be the origin of the "Armenia" toponym, via Assyrian-Persian transmission. It's an exonym anyway and has in origin nothing to do with the Hayk people. I don't know. Either way, this is to be discussed at Armenia (name), not at Armenia. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi dab, you deserve a Barnstar. Odysses (☜) 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of WPGreece
		For your contributions to WP:GREECE and particularly to the Cumae alphabet, I award you this barnstar Odysses (☜) 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

why, thank you! --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hayasa

Hi, Dab. You said there it would be impossible for Hay and Hayasa to have relation. Could you explain why? I would like to keep this discussion on your talk page--I don't like going back and forth. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant references are on Talk:Hayk, I think. The point is that no serious linguist proposes it. I know why, but the burden is not on me to explain why (but here you go: hay is perfectly satisfactorily explained as a continuation of poti. The h must continue some occlusive consonant, that is, something that no Hittite scribe would have rendered by h). the fact of the matter is that this is apparently an idea of some Soviet era Armenian historian, and in spite of being entirely without merit, it survives in Armenian nationalist literature and murky websites. This is a non-issue, and frankly I am rather tired of discussing the Armenian brand of lunatic fringe pseudohistorians.--dab (𒁳) 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Why does h have to continue a consonant? Why can't it be the beginning of a word?--TigranTheGreat 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

you don't understand. not "follow a consonant", but continue in the sense of "what is now a h used to be a stop consonant in Proto-Armenian": poti becomes fahi or something, and later ha'i, and finally hay. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let's say "h" has to develop from a stop consonant. Couldn't then the word "hai" developed prior to 15th c BC? So when Hittites encountered that word, it already started with h.--TigranTheGreat 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

hah, you mean to date Proto-Armenian to the Bronze Age? That's presumably what the nationalists would have you believe, but it is nonsense. It would mean that "Armenian" underwent radical changes in 2500-1500, conveniently just immediately before our first sources, into a worn-down state not reached by other languages until 2,000 years later, and then miraculously stopped evolving and stayed the same for another 2,000 years. That's about as far from Occam's razor as postulating the Armenians lived in Indonesia and dug a tunnel to Armenia in 1550 BC. Seriously, Tigran, let's spare ourselves this nonsense. This is pure uneducated blogcruft and has nothing to do with encyclopedicity, linguistics or ancient history. dab (𒁳) 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, a real Armenologist could propably prove that the sound change occurred after contact with the Persians, that is, after 900 BC at the very very earliest (realistically: after 500 BC, under the Orontids). i.e. by showing that Persian loanwords were affected. I'd have to look up an Armenian grammar for that (or you could do it. check out the literature at Proto-Armenian: it is listed there for a reason). I think it is clear to any historical linguist that Proto-Armenian must have evolved from a pre-Armenian stage during the Iron Age, in about 800-300 BC. I suppose it is realistic to speak of "Armenian" by 300 BC, but keep in mind that we have not a single syllable of an Armenian word until after another 800 years. In Armenian linguistics, anything before AD 400 is dark prehistory. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I might dismiss it as nonesense if it wasn't mentioned in every comprehensive history of Armenia in Western Armenology. C.J. Walker was one example. Hewsen's 2000 Historical Atlas mentions the possible link with Hayasa as well. I am actually learning from this exchange and from Talk:Hayk, so this is exciting. Right now I am trying to understand the basic logic of your argument first.

So, are you saying there is a rule in linguistics that says that "h" can't survive for 2000 years? (from 1500 BC till 500 AD--Movses of Chorne)? Then how did it survive for 2500 years (from 500 BC till today). I believe you said the change to "h" realistically happened some time after contact with Persian in 500 BC.

Alternatively, could the ethnonym have been Khay in 1500 BC, and the Hittite word be "Khayasa?" And later Khay became Hay? Some sources use the "Khayasa" version (actually, C.J. Walker did).--TigranTheGreat 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, Tigran: I am not an Armenologist, just a historical linguist. I'll have to look things up in literature. I encourage you to consult the stuff listed at Proto-Armenian, but if you give me some time, I can come back to you with linguistic details. Note that none of this takes away that the Hayasa lived in the Armenian Highlands, this is just about the continuity of the ethnonym. Note that you can safely dismiss any source that is not aware of Meillet's 1936 esquisse, before which Armenian etymology was hardly understood at all. Since that was written in French, I wouldn't be surprised if the 1947 Armenian historian cited at Talk:Hayk was blissfully ignorant of Meillet's work. From the remaining references at Talk:Hayk, I think it is perfectly clear that the idle 1947 association of Hayk and Hayasa was never taken seriously by anyone who knew anything about Armenian linguistics, including Soviet academia. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No no, it's all right, you are busy, you don't need to do the research on this. Forgetting about the linguistic arguments--if the *possible* connection is mentioned in a western, non-Armenian history of Armenia, doesn't it deserve a mention in the Armenia article? The two sources--Walker and Hewsen, aren't saying "it defenitely was related"--only "maybe." I mean doesn't that make it relevant?--TigranTheGreat 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, yes, of course, I subscribe to WP:RS over WP:TRUTH as I should. But what sort of publications are these Walker and Hewsen? And what exactly do they say? My suspicion is that they merely parrot "some have suggested", which is true enough. We should by all means cover the "Hayasa-Hayk" think for what it is worth. My understanding is that no linguist has ever endorsed this, and that the pedigree involves a lot of copying by non-experts of "some have suggested", back to Kapantsyan (1947). If this has notability in the self-perception of Armenians, we can treat it as such. But we cannot present it as a linguistic hypothesis if it isn't tenable as a linguistic hypothesis. peace, dab (𒁳) 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Neopagan stuff

Hi Dab. I don't have much to add to what I put on the talk page of the List of Neopagan movements article, but wanted to check in over here, too. I don't want to edit war on this, but it's just that we've done so much to try to educate people that Reconstructionism and Wicca are different approaches, that it really is hard for me to see you put eclectic groups into the reconstructionist categories, and then revert me when I explain and remove them. I respect your work on WP a great deal, but as one of the founders of CR I have to say I think you are wrong about this. Here are a few links that I had nothing to do with writing: Reconstructionist Paganism, Why Wicca is not Celtic. And a source I am connected to: Not Wiccan (The FAQ was written collectively and approved by hundreds of CRs, btw.) I also thought how we differ from Wicca and Neo-druids is explained in the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article, and touched on in Polytheistic Reconstructionism as well as Neopaganism. If that distinction is not clear, perhaps we need to do something to make it more clear? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you say. Let us discuss this at Talk:List of Neopagan movements, I am sure we can find a satisfactory solution. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient egyptian race split

I don't believe a split is necessary and I saw no discussion of it on the talk page. The article actually doesn't even mention much about Afrocentric views. Splitting it would make absolutely no sense. How would that be done? What would we move to Afrocentrism? I see nothing that could possibly be moved there and removed from the current article. Also, The article presents all relevant views per their weight. We can't just remove all mentions of Afrocentric beliefs about the race of ancient Egyptians from the article if it's relevant to the topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed the point about ten times over, since 2005, for the last time here. Have you read anything of my comments, at all? Also observe my recent changes to the ToC, attempting to separate out Afrocentrist stuff. Treating Afro-American Studies as a topic separate from Egyptology is simply non-negotiable, no matter what lengths Ausar Auset & friends go to in order to create smoke screens. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I've only recently came to the article. What you link to leads just to the talk page, so it must be in the archives. The information on King tut, Diop and Cleopatra are all relevant to the article. We can't just remove relevant information because it's afrocentric in nature. We must present all relevant info per WP:Weight. Getting rid of all of it and moving it to another article will do nothing but remove relevant info from the Race of Ancient Egyptians article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can. Afrocentrism is a 20th century US American ideology, and while Ancient Egypt has an impact on Afrocentrism, Afrocentrism has no impact whatsoever on topics of Ancient Egypt. WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. It only says that fringe theories need to be notable to be mentioned. The Afrocentric controversies are notable and are highly referenced. It does NOT say that fringe views should be ignored if they have relevance to a topic of discussion, which in this case they do. Let's continue this discussion on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A last note. I want to encourage you to remove the split tags. You may believe that the views of Afrocentricists or the controversies concerning them are not relevant as they are not egyptologists (though some are), You need to realize that even fringe views and controversies (if notable) are considered relevant and must be mentioned. The article is about the race of the ancient egyptians and that topic has gathered controversy and thus that controversy needs mention. Even the Evolution article discusses the social and religious controversies of evolution (though also in seperate articles as there is so much of it), See: Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies. The Race of Ancient Egyptians article can discuss it briefly without putting it somewhere else, and EVEN IF the bulk of it were to be put in the Afrocentricism article, the Race of Ancient egyptians article would have to summarize it and then link to the relevant article discussing it. Though none of that is necessary as the article currently does a good job of summarizing it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

we can remove the tags, once either (a) the Afrocentrist content has been exported, or alternatively (b) the article stops to pretend being about Egyptology and comes up front with being entirely about Afro-American Studies. It's one or the other, the two fields do not overlap, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You think it's "entirely about afro-American studies"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, and remove your split tags. As you are wrong, in stating that the two do not overlap. Open your mind. Like I said before, at one time, the world was concidered as flat, and anyone who thought otherwise was a fool. The principle applies in this case too. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 10:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware of what Wikipedia is intended to be, and what it isn't. Wikipedia is built to reflect academic mainstream. Take it or leave it. If academia comes to embrace Afrocentrism in 20 years' time, feel free to come back in twenty years and rewrite the article. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

anti-Armenianism?

Dab, I asked for a mediation between us according to the facts of unexplained editions and obvious OR like "Armenian nativist" discriminative, first time used "term" so pls try to avoid of unexplained deletions of important tags from the Armenia-related articles (how and why you deleted the "Armenian history" tag from the Armenian Kingsom's first capital Van?) until the end of mediation. Andranikpasha 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I advise you to first read and understand Wikipedia policy, and then try to present your case in good faith, instead of jumping to mediation. Frakly, it is the same to me whether I discuss with you or with somebody else, as long as I am discussing with an intelligent grown-up fluent in English. It has become fashionable, has it not, to use the "History of Armenia" to claim virtual territory. The template is far too large to grace every article with any relevance to the history of Armenia, we have categories for that. To support a template of this size, the article must direcly address a topic of Armenian history. The Van, Turkey article is first and foremost about a city in Turkey, not about Armenian history. Contrary to your claim, I did not "delete" the template, I moved it to the "history" section. Pray avoid wasting my time with baseless complaints like that. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Just one thing (also related to the Wiki rules): when you're deleting (Im not about movings) "History of Armenia" tags from a number of articles like Metsamor site, Zorats Kareretc. pls use the page summery to explan them or better discuss at first. At least they are obviously in Armenia and surely are related to the history of Armenia (if even not the history of Armenians)! Andranikpasha 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes. In case you have genuine questions about some edit of mine, I will also always be happy to explain myself upon inquiry. Btw, is there some reason why the coat of arms of the Lusignan dynasty (), French rulers of Cilicia in the later 14th century, was chosen to grace the "History of Armenia" template in particular? dab (𒁳) 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not involved, even not going to discuss the problem of that "coat of arms". Anyways, what I read in that article: "In the 13th century the Lusignans also intermarried with the royal families of the Principality of Antioch and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. The Hethoumids ruled Cilicia until the murder of Leon V in 1341, when his cousin Guy Lusignan (who took the name of Constantine II of Armenia) was elected king."Lusignans/Kings of Lesser Armenia, justifies that using which seems to be a good example of internationalism in Wiki! so what's the problem with that coat of arms? Should we use that of only the kings of Armenian ancestry?? Anyways 1.I prefer to discuss in a neutral talk page, to not disturb you here, 2. Id prefer to discuss only the editions where Im interested or included to be more effective. Thanks! Andranikpasha 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw I was the one who added the Armenian lusignan coa for eye candy alone. They were not French by any means and identified themselves as Armenian first and foremost, even if not fully Armenian by blood. As for the template, it should only be added to states and historical periods not random topics in accordance to similar templates.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the img -- if you want to revert to the Lusignan coa, feel free. Yes, we need to actively combat template clutter, and place templates such as this one only on articles with a direct and strong relevance to the umbrella topic. dab (𒁳) 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the template from all unrelated pages where it was added by ararat_arev. Reverting a banned user doesn't even require justification as far as I know btw. No need to revert the image, not a big deal. I only chose the Lusignan cuz it was of a better quality and looked good.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Jean IV de Bueil

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jean IV de Bueil, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jean IV de Bueil seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jean IV de Bueil, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

With apologies for the expedient template,

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Race of Ancient Egyptians. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you, I am well aware of this rule. dab (𒁳) 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Hjuka Coulter

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Hjuka Coulter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hjuka Coulter. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ararat arev is back with a library account

User Talk:75.51.174.110 along with User talk:68.122.96.243 - - Deniz ^T_C 19:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, he's throwing a fit again. dab (𒁳) 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys revert all his edits with one button? Deniz^T_C 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

he is IP-hopping. We can block his IP range, but we have to roll back the edits individually. It's not a problem, there are enough people paying attention at any time. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How much do you want to wager that we've got another sock here: User:ArmenianHighland? Thanatosimii 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

yes -- here's somebody definitely missing the point where he outstayed his welcome. Should be blocked as they come in. dab (𒁳) 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jews added to European ethnic groups

Hello. I have removed User:Tasmaniacs changes twice so far and left two messages on his talk page, but he is persisting without seeking consensus. His might be a WP:SPA. Cheers, Mathsci 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I have an opinion on this -- the Jews can be considered an ethnic group, or a religious community, or anything between the two. They are a special case and might be listed as a category unto themselves, I don't know. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In the demographics section of Marseille they appear as a religion rather an ethnic group. In London there is a reference to the immigration of eastern European jews, but mostly the community of British jews is discussed under religion. Paris mentions migrations from Italy, central Europe and North Africa, but has no section on religion. New York lists, them only once under religion. For France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland they appear under religion or history. In Greece and Norway they are also listed as an ethnic minority. Portugal lists them as a historical ethnic group and has only two sentences on religion. Austria lists them under religion and cuisine. I have not looked at eastern European countries, where things are obviously more complicated. --Mathsci 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Jew? -- "ethnicity" is a difficult question in any case, and Jewishness (Judaicity?) is of exemplary difficulty. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It is no accident that the 2001 census forms in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) for example allowed British citizens freely to describe their own ethnicity (within a set of options - A White (British, Irish, other), B Mixed, C Asian or Asian British, D Black or Black British, E Chinese or other ethnic group); the question on religion was optional. I don't know what happens elsewhere in Europe. --Mathsci 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template of Iran

Hi please see my comment on that talkpage. --alidoostzadeh 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Urartu

Why did you remove important information from the Urartu article? Your reasoning of "irrelevant as being based on Genesis" is incorrect in two aspects, that Genesis is often used as a primary source for the time period, and what qualification do you have to deem Genesis as irrelevent? The burden is on you just as much as it is on me, to show the relevence or irrelevence of Genesis.--Moosh88 03:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

please pay attention. Genesis is already mentioned. Feel free to quote Khorenatsi on top of that, but do it properly. The bit I removed cited no source at all. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

question

I have just relised you have placed a block on a user known as User:63rd and you blocked them as a sockpuppet, however I am going against this user as you can't just assume they are a 63rd sockpuppet because of their username. That is quite silly behaviour, I've checked and there is no 62nd. The user also appeared to be making good edits so there was no reason whatsoever for that block unless you display evidence that the user is a sockpuppet. (Without the username). The sunder king 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, the block was based on the account's editing pattern, and not the name. It seamlessly continued an edit-war of a banned user's. --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the editors you blocked for 48 hours has just come back with a vengeance

User 68.122.96.243 (talk · contribs) has been spamming Armenian history articles with Mitanni stuff, including Russian Armenia (focussed on the period 1828-1918) and the Democratic Republic of Armenia (1918-1920). I suggest a perma-ban. (BTW Do you, as an admin, have a quick way of reverting all this guy's edits? He's spammed dozens of pages with the same stuff as far as I can tell). --Folantin 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, this is Ararat arev (talk · contribs) throwing his choleric fit from time to time. I suppose he is lonely and needs the attention. No, sorry, I don't have a way to roll his mess back automatically. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again: Haiks (talk · contribs). --Folantin 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi Dieter. I know that you are busy with more cranky stuff, but if you have the time, this might interest you.--Berig 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I'd like to inform that the mediation case is already opened at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-10-30_Possible_anti-Armenianism_by_Dbachmann. -- Andranikpasha 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello Dieter,

I took over the mediation case, renamed it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-30 Armenian nationalism and added the mediator notes. Please let me know if you want to join the mediation and if you accept me as a mediator.

As you know, all mediations are completely voluntary, but I recommend you to join it. It seems like there are a number of points you have not been able to get across to each other. Of course, it would be ideal if you could just ignore the problems, but you know that in real life problems get seldom solved that way.

This mediation is designed as an easy way to solve communication problems; especially for reasonable editors who feel the other party is unreasonable:

• Instead of convincing the other party, you only need to convince me, and I promise I will do my best to get your point across.
• Instead of listening to the other party, which may not be good at explaining things in a foreign language, you can simply listen to me, and I promise you three things: I will only bother you with points that convinced me, clarify any misunderstandings regarding Wikipedia policies before you have to do so and I will do my best to keep each remaining point clear and logical. — Sebastian 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian — I am myself involved in mediation efforts all the time, without opening official cases or sub-pages. I am more than happy to accept your contributions, and your attempts to get a point across to "the other party". I am happy to listen to your criticism regarding what may be perceived as "Anti-Armenianism" in my edits, and I'll be even more happy if you can impress some notion of Wikipedia core policies on Andranikpasha. Note that we have some good Armenian editors, such as User:Eupator and User:TigranTheGreat. You may want to get Andranikpasha to learn about WP by watching these. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab pls try to not mix different things! the case is opened by me is against some of your editions seems to be anti-Armenian. Not Talk:Mitanni, nor WP:FTN#Armenia_2, Talk:Aratta are within this case as they're not related to your marked editions and never were watched by me, and I dont know whats your purpose to add Ararat arev and 68.122.96.243 here, as they are blocked users and never were included in our discussions. try to not misrepresent my case against your marked editions as your case against banned users and "Armenian nationalism", as it is something very different and can have separate case (where Im not include). I hope to see from you more constructivism at least at the first period of the case otherwise this case is just meaningless! Andranikpasha 12:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, I do not consider you a special case in any way so that I would be motivated to engage in bilateral talks with you. I deal with individual topics (articles), not individual editors. I am prepared to discuss specific topics with anyone who is interested, which will include you if you participate reasonably in talkpage discussion. But I cannot discuss the same points again with every Armenian patriot that stumbles onto Wikipedia. That's impossible, and not required of anyone. So, if you will, raise points concerning Armenian nationalism at Talk:Armenian nationalism, but do not make this into a matter "between you and me". What will I gain if I convince you of my approach if I have to start over mediation with the next Armenian editor newly arriving on the scene? Just make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and common practice, and I really will not care whether I am discussing a given point with you, with Sebastian, or with anybody else. Accusing me of "Anti-Armenianism" is so far removed from anything resembling a reasonable on-topic discussion that I really have no interest in even addressing it. WP:NOT#MYSPACE: I am not here to make friends or to be popular to just chat with people. Go easy on my time please. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK! and here are the rules which anyone will learn at first WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Citing sources! Andranikpasha 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AE - response

Dbachmann, let me set a few things straight, with all due respect. While I have no reason to doubt you are acting perfectly in good faith, I still think your efforts are misguided. It has been established that this controversy exists well beyond (and mostly outside) of strict Egyptological circles, and nobody is disputing that. However, want it or not, this controversy is also partly based on data garnered from Egyptological studies (some of it isn't), so separating this controversy between a "Egyptology" and "Afrocentrism" while saying that anybody who says Egypt is a civilization with roots in Black Africa (even partly) is an Afrocentrist is just too dogmatic. Diop's ideas, while not fully received by the community, still have made headways since his original thesis has been turned down, and some of it is accepted. Thus, erecting an absolutist wall between "Egyptology" and "Afrocentrism" does not seem like a sound idea to me, not to mention that it would make a POV fork, and one I'm particularly uneasy about, as there is great potential for racism in this particular fork. So, no, please don't take my position as "siding with the trolls", as I believe most if not all editors at the article are acting in good faith (with the possible exception of a certain anon IP), even though maybe at cross purposes sometimes. I would highly recommend that you try to tame your attitude as it comes across as if you despise anything that might be construed as "Afrocentrism", as I suspect this may be why many people are so reticent to discuss the matter with you. But if you're prepare to negotiate in good faith and bend some of your positions to accomodate others, I'm sure we can come at a consensus that will include everyone.--Ramdrake 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

far from erecting an "absolutist wall", I have been proposing, for ages and tirelessly, a brief WP:SS reference to Afrocentrism from the Egyptological article. More than that is simply unwarranted per WP:UNDUE. This has been going on since 2005, and a have absolutely no patience to take people by the hand who do not want to look up policy. I am glad you seem to have a realistic take of the topic. Now you need to apply Wikipedia's guidelines, and you'll be all with me that while we can refer to the phenomenon of Afrocentrism as a fringe view, even on Egyptological articles, it is clearly a separate topic to be treated at a separate article. I am trying to do nothing more and nothing less than that. This is an absolutely minimal position that cannot be "bent" any further, and that cannot be negotiated, sorry. Once we do have an article on Afrocentrist Egyptology, there will be much room for debate on how to present the case halfway neutrally. Before we even have an article on the topic, it is impossible to agree on how it should be presented. dab (𒁳) 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Somehow I think that the Race of ancient Egyptians article could probably use protection of some kind again. Who do you think should be contacted for such protection? John Carter 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot do it, for obvious reasons. Try WP:RFP. I am not convinced, however, that pages should be protected in the face of trolling. It is obvious to my mind that Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs), Taharqa (talk · contribs), and arguably Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) are trolling accounts the rolling back of whose edits should be 3RR-exempt. But we'd need an "uninvolved admin" to make that call. The trouble with this is, of course, that as soon as you make such a call, the trolls will allege that you are not, in fact, "uninvolved" any more. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians

You need to stop edit warring on the Race of ancient Egyptians page. Regardless of the justification of your edits, edit warring won't accomplish anything. If your edits are truly justified and those you are reverting violate guidelines or policy, then Start a RFC on the users adding them, Add a notice to the admin notice board asking for help, etc. These are the methods for resolving these sorts of disputes, not simply reverting over and over. If the edit warring continues I'll be forced to request that the entire page be sanctioned a 1 revert per week rule with the exception of obvious vandalism or self reverts. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

have you actually reviewed my edits? See above: I have raised issues in all seriousness on talk, but was shouted down by trolling accounts. You cannot debate with trolls. I am most happy to debate with you, or Ramdrake, or any other reasonable editor, so if you can point out anything that isn't perfectly uncontroversial about my edits please do, but stop protecting the trolls in the name of "consensus", that's not what WP:CONSENSUS is for. As long as the talkpage is dominated by trolling, my edits are informed by WP:DFTT. As always, I am perfectly willing to debate reasonably with all and everyone. How difficult is it to understand the question, have afrocentric positions been defended in peer-reviewed academic literature. Instead of either providing such references, or else admitting there are none and agreeing to splitting the fringy stuff off the serious article, "trolling" means dodging the question and blathering about racism or Eurocentrism in general. Wake me up once people have agreed they will present their academic literature first and argue in circles only after they have done that. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The request has been made. Let's hope we see some action soon. John Carter 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I oppose a page protection. It hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. I have proposed other measures to help the article. [see here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

you may want to review the history of Talk:Out of India theory for a parallel case, and the dynamics such things take on Wikipedia. Appeasement of the trolls is never a solution. The only way forward is the strictest enforcement of relying on peer-reviewed literature exclusively. I am asking no more (and no less) than that. It is beyond me how this can be controversial among bona fide editors. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe my recent statements on the talk page of the above mentioned article are accurate about challenged material needing sourcing. However, I acknowledge my own comparative lack of expertise in these matters. You have displayed a substantially better knowledge of such matters than I in the past, and if you believe that my statements are correct, I would request that perhaps we create a separate section of the talk page to indicate which existing content requires separate explicit sourcing. John Carter 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for 'manifest'?

Hi dab. As you may have noticed, some of the editors (including myself) on the Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians page are trying to get a 'manifest' of sorts put together (examples of such being found on the Talk:Abortion and Talk:Intelligent design pages). I realize that you might be unwilling to get involved here, but is there any way you could help us get the ball rolling on this by making a few suggestions? I value your experience as a veteran editor and think you would offer solid advice on putting a clear list of guidelines together. If you're fed up with it, however, I understand. Thanks in advance. Varoon Arya 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

God in Christianity

Hi,

I noticed that you redirected God in Christianity to Christian God which is a disambig page. I was a bit surprised at this until I dug into the edit history and discovered that God in Christianity was originally created by me back in May of this year. I extracted text out of Trinity and the article was very quickly truncated to a redirect to Trinity by User:A.J.A. an hour later.

I think what happened was that, given previous experiences with A.J.A., I threw up my hands in frustration and didn't execute on my original vision for God in Christianity. He didn't ask me what my vision was for the article and I didn't have the time and energy to explain it and try to convince him.

However, once I was reminded of the existence of that title today, I renewed my interest in having a real article under that title to parallel God in Abrahamic religions, God in Islam and the not yet written God in Judaism.

Please look at God in Abrahamic religions and User:Richardshusr/God in Christianity to see what my vision is. I know that there will need to be a lot of cleanup to eliminate redundant or irrelevant text.

User:Richardshusr/God in Christianity is in particular need of cleanup. It is currently a cut-and-paste of text from Christianity, Trinity and a couple of other articles.

My major point is that, if someone wants to learn about "God in Christianity", we shouldn't send them on an unguided tour of six or seven articles about different aspects of the concept of God in Christianity. That's what Christian God does right now. What we should do is provide a guided overview of all aspects of God in Christianity with links to the main articles on each aspect. That's what User:Richardshusr/God in Christianity tries to do.

I plan to make my case to a larger audience soon and hopefully form a consensus to move User:Richardshusr/God in Christianity into the title God in Christianity. However, I figured I'd try out my idea on you first and see what your thoughts are.

Any ideas for improving User:Richardshusr/God in Christianity would be much appreciated.

--Richard 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

excellent. Redirecting "God in Christianity" to "Trinity" is patent nonsense, of course. I didn't create the disambiguation page because I think it should be one, but because I didn't have time to write a full article (I am glad I didn't now, seeing that you already did). I would invite you to restore the full article right now. dab (𒁳) 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you for 24h for (1) editing without consensus, (2) violation of 3RR, and (3) misuse of admin rollback during a revert war that you're involved in. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

good call, Penwhale, so we now have admins blocking other admins for rolling back trolling? How about you go to Race of ancient Egyptians in the meantime and establish order with this bad cop attitude of yours? Hint, you are supposed to block the accounts in violation of policy, not your fellow admins trying to enforce policy. I'll be more than happy to sit out this block, since see I was tricked into a fourth revert, if you will just agree to see to it that the article is properly tagged and the talkpage troll-free upon my return. dab (𒁳) 08:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

alright, how did you even become an admin, young Jedi? 73% support wasn't considered a "consensus" in my day. If I was you, I wouldn't parade my new blocking powers into people's face on grounds as dodgy as "editing without consensus". I was tricked into a 3RRvio by trolls, fair enough. Now I ask you to take this whole mess to WP:AN/I to be looked at by more admins, and hand out sanctions all around until morale improves. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab, shame Moreschi isn't around this week as he would have unblocked you pronto. I can try to get hold of Adam to unblock you if you want to take this to AN/I yourself. Cheers. --Folantin 08:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this on AN/I, and would like to note that personal attacks on the blocking admin like this are completely uncalled for. --krimpet⟲ 08:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

well, have you ever observed the effect that the blocked party often reacts with irritation? Still, this isn't a personal attack. I never heard of Penwhale, so I went to check his RfA and found that he got his buttons a month ago, barely scratching 75% support: what is "personal" about this? That said, I do admit the block for 3RR is arguable (not obvious -- see if you can make out my four "reverts"), but was hardly carried out with circumspection. Anyway Penwhale's track record is not under discussion here. It is irrelevant who the blocking admin was as soon as the case is reviewed more widely. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

no, no, I accept the block for 3RRvio. It's a fair cop, I should know better than be tricked by trolls. But my last edit was at 13:43. Penwhale blocked me fully 7 hours after that, after I had done another 100 edits that were completely unrelated to the dispute and perfectly useful and encyclopedic. This isn't the purpose of 3RR blocks. Otoh, the tag-team with a contribution history of exclusively ideological revert-warring on Race of Ancient Egyptians go unblocked. I request application of WP:UCS. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|see comment above: 
*consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today.
*either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing 
impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves.
}}

OK, do you want us to alert AN/I right now? I doubt if many people are watching your talk page. --Folantin 08:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

um, yeah, that's sort of the point of the {{unblock}} template above -- it's supposed to attract uninvolved admins. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ok Folantin, if you can put this on AN/I for me, I don't need to keep the template active -- it's not stritcly speaking an unblock request. thanks, dab (𒁳) 08:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Folantin 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Parole

Hi, dab. I've tried to reach Penwhale, but I don't think he's online. Unless I hear from him in a few minutes, I will unblock you on the parole condition you suggest. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I would be much obliged. I have no intention of touching this Ancient Egypt mess for a day or two in any case. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

doh, I just note it is fully protected anyway. Still, my parole would hold even if it was unprotected. dab (𒁳) 09:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. Go forth and edit. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

thankyou kindly... dab (𒁳) 09:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done!--Berig 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Well, now that I'm awake (sorry I wasn't online-- I got into a fight with my sister and went to bed early; otherwise I might have stayed up until 4 or 5am)... People hold administrators to a higher standard, and we are still regular editors on top of our administrative powers. Even when enforcing policy, we have to be careful with not violating other policies as well. That was the reason that I blocked you (granted that I would have shortened/removed the block myself if I were on at that time). I note that you never responded to other editors on Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians after your 11:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) revision. Either way, I'm not taking further actions on this issue. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right -- you did nothing wrong, sorry if I came across disgruntled (I used to have a clean block log, from July 2004 until yesterday...). Still, since I believe it is undisputed that I am generally a reasonable editor, you could have dropped me a warning instead of a block, especially seeing that seven hours had gone by and I wasn't even online at the time: it was hardly a case of an urgent cooling-down block in order to defuse a situation. You can still argue for an "algorithmic" 3RRvio block (one that could be issued by an admin-bot), but then you shouldn't have topped it with claims of "misuse of rollback" or "edited without consensus": these are very much open to debate, and you should make up your mind to either decide to block someone on grounds of 3RRvio, no debate necessary, or block them based on "various disruption", but then you'll need to warn them of your intentions first, and above all evaluate the situation even-handedly and in its entirety (that is, understand the dispute history and block the trolling accounts). dab (𒁳) 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I get back to you on this one in a little bit? My head is still groggy. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist -- I've had my say, we can also leave it at that. cheers, --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry for causing you unnecessary stress. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Top 1000 Scientists

Mr.Bachman

There seems to be an edit was going on between two editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Top_1000_Scientists:_From_the_Beginning_of_Time_to_2000_AD&curid=4159373&diff=168498596&oldid=168493075

One belives that use of the word "while" is pov and that mention on scientists' nationalities is useless as many have changed nationalities,the oter insists on inserting them.I wonder if you would like to intervene.Regards(Venkat Radhakrishnan 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Please drop by the discussion again (and try to be a little less condescending). Thanks. Afasmit 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I have anything to add to what I said. People are free to consider the point I have made for what it is worth regardless of any perceived or alleged "condescension" in my making it. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Justus Scaliger

Hi dab. Could you please give me some pointers on an addition I am working on relating to Joseph Scaliger and the beginnings of comparative linguistics? Please see my talkpage for details. Thanks. Varoon Arya 20:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Asha

I was trying to arrange the pgs in following way:
a) make a main pg for Asha (disambiguation), b) list all pgs related to Asha. Thats why I was trying --Avinesh Jose 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

don't do that please. See WP:MOVE. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Godhead Merge?

Why did you merge Godhead (Judaism) with God in Judaism, and without any discussion? I would appreciate if you would undo the merge, as Godhead is a distinct concept, and deserves a distinct article. Thanks. —Dfass 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

because these articles were stubs and in bad shape. Feel free to improve them. If you can write a full article on "Godhead", as opposed to "God", I am sure nobody will object to it. I don't get it why people tend to complain when their stubby articles and/or dictdefs are merged into a larger context, even when not a iota of their material was lost. You will hardly dispute that the concept of "Godhead" is somehow related to "God"? And that your material resides in full glory as the first two sections of God in Judaism now? Please, feel free to create a new "Godhead" sub-article with the exact same content as in the main article: I will not oppose this actively, although I see no point in such a course, at all. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Godhead" is somehow related to "God", and "central nervous system" is somehow related to "nervous system," but that doesn't mean they need share the same articles. I think Godhead can be a valid independent article, even though I did not make it such. "God in Judaism" is a hugely broad topic that could easily float an entire encyclopedia. Godhead is a much narrower topic, on which only a few books have been written. The reason I object (even though you preserved the text) is that in a few days someone will come along and say "gee this stuff on Godhead is way too abstruse for a general article on God in Judaism," and then it will be gone, and then I'll have to spend my morning corresponding with that person about their motivations, hopes, aspirations, existential angsts, and whatnot. So I will de-merge the articles, and try to expand Godhead gradually. Thanks. —Dfass 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

as you like. This is a discussion of meta:mergism, not of the validity of the topic (which is of course undisputed). --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting two vandals

Anonymous contributors 67.53.228.203 and 129.89.107.143 should be stopped. I just reverted their vandalism of Kevin (disambiguation). I checked their other contributions, and they have all been acts of vandalism. Pasquale 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose and Asha (name)

Hi,

I read your comment on Avineshjose's Talk Page. Given my own experience with him, I am not surprised that he has done things in a frustrating way even though I'm sure it was done in good faith.

I am working with him to mentor him through the learning process. Although I could probably figure out the details of what he did with Asha (name) by looking through edit histories and contrib histories, you could save me some time by giving me a quick synopsis of what he did and what was less than optimal about it.

Once I understand that, I can explain to him in a more detailed fashion what the issues were with what he did and how he can avoid creating problems next time.

Thanx.

--Richard 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

it's not terrible. His wife is called Asha, so he thought our Asha should mention the fact. He was then told that Avestan Asha has nothing to do with the Hindi name, whereupon he decided the Asha article should reside at Asha Avestan language, doing a copy-paste move and turned Asha into what was formerly Asha (disambiguation). He also created Asha (name), which is fair enough in priciple, but had no content worth keeping, so I redirected it back to Asha (disambiguation). I don't see the need for any mentoring here, requiring people to read the pertinent guidelines should really be enough. regards, dab (𒁳) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please listen, I thought of renaming the page, "Asha" to "Asha (Zoroastrian principle)" since Asha, the word has a number of distinct senses. Because, I thought of the renamed article Asha should have all disambiguation links including Zoroastrian principle concept also.Unfortunately, I could not finish my work in between as I had to logout (I was editing with multiple windows). Thanks Richard for concerned my circumstances.--Avinesh Jose 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can imagine that the article at Asha could also be titled Asha (Zoroastrian principle) although simplicity suggests that Asha is the better title. It's not clear that the Zorastrian principle is the most widely used meaning although it certainly seems like the most content that is likely to be written on "Asha".

I agree that there is not enough content about Asha (name) to warrant a separate article. This is probably true of most names although I suspect that there are lots of articles about names anyway, like Richard for example.

As for mentoring, I'm involved here because AvineshJose asked me to look at it. Sometimes it helps to have a third opinion as a sanity check.

My final comment to Dbachmann is "Please dont' bite." Most people come to Wikipedia not knowing our alphabet soup of policies and guidelines. A gentle explanation of where the other editor has gone wrong helps the project more than a terse and snappy comment.

--Richard 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

sure -- I accept I could be more gentle. My take on this is that we should gently point people to {{welcome}}, and expect them to find their way from there without too much interactive feedback. Asha (name) is certainly a valid title that could be fleshed out into a full article. The Zoroastrian principle is clearly the most likely encyclopedic topic to be expected under the name, so that I maintain that, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the Asha article should stay where it is. Avineshjose, since your motive appears to be linking to your wife's name, be aware of "piped" links, like so: Asha. This is how you should link to your wife's name, no need to fiddle with the Zoroastrian article. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment I was told that Avestan Asha has nothing to do with the Hindi name "Asha" (edited by mistake) I changed it in my user pg. Whatever it is, I still believe that, “Asha” pg must be a disambiguation pg, not exclusively for “Avestan Asha” as it is now. And the “disambiguation pg of Asha” has to provide links to all Asha’s (as logic wise also). I also suggest that instead of the word “ASHA” redirects to “American Speech-Language-Hearing Association”, it should also goes to “disambiguation pg of Asha” where a link must be placed for “American Speech-Language-Hearing Association”. I don't want to edit war on this and leaving the decision to Richard, my mentor. You may be right, if Asha had not been my wife and a popular name in India, I would have come into this argument.--Avinesh Jose 10:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

no need to edit war. You need to build a case based on MoS. You want to proceed as follows:

• Look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation
• you decide that people looking for "Asha" are at least as likely expecting the Hindi name as the Avestan concept
• you find that I disagree with this, partly because we don't even have an article on the Hindi name (also note that Aasha is a redirect unambiguously intended for the Hindi name, but points to the movie article, because somebody thought people looking for the Hindi name will most likely be looking for that movie).
• you want to go to WP:RM and propose a move of Asha to Asha (Zoroastrianism)
• you wait for people's input
• if your position finds more support than mine, I'll be happy to move the article.
• see also Wikipedia:Consensus.

dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• What I've done is here: Talk:Asha.--Avinesh Jose 10:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

de:Bild:Hoechstalemannisch.png

Hello - in the de:Diskussion:Hoechstalemannisch I found some objections regarding the limits of the area that you covered in red on your map. If you need more specific hints (in English) you can contact me at de:Benutzer Diskussion:KaPe --KaPe 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

it's a rough approximation. It's GFDLed, and people are free to improve upon it if they so desire. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

Sorry for the overdone announcement here but hey, I don't expect it to happen again. I probably won't get back to the CR article til tomorrow afternoon but I really think your most recent round of criticism is very helpful and constructive in improving the article. Pigman^what?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

DYK

On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Far right in Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kindly nominated by Carabinieri.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Eunma Elish

Have a look at the latest version of Enuma Elish. It now has lots on Gensis 1, but could be extended with reference to other biblical texts - ~esp. those that deal with Yahweh's battles with sea-monsters. PiCo 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting another vandal

66.168.45.184 should be blocked. Their contributions so far consist exclusively of profanities (misspelled to boot) and vandalism. Pasquale 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists and the "contents" pages

There's a reply to your post at Wikipedia talk:Contents:

• there is no clear division, and there will always be room for debate. Common sense needs to be applied, case by case. The relevant question is: "is the page indexing Wikipedia, or is it an encyclopedic list?". Clear subpages of Wikipedia:Content obviously belong in Wikipedia: namespace. Otoh, things like list of academic disciplines are valid list articles that just happen to be linked from Wikiedia:Content. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it obvious? What common sense are you applying? How did you choose? Could you tell us how "topic" or "basic topic" differs from "academic discipline" and what makes the latter encyclopedic and the others not? What makes the page Lists of topics and the page Lists of basic topics not valid lists? The Transhumanist    22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Also, there are many other points covered in the discussion now, such as searches and linkability. The Transhumanist    23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you will get my meaning if you think about it for another minute. I really don't see a point in keeping filibustering about this. An "academic discipline" can be referenced off-wiki, while there is no way to get a list of "Wikipedia topics" without referring to Wikipedia. Avoid self-references. dab (𒁳) 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that we're still wrestling with, is how this might affect other "Lists of lists", such as List of timelines and Lists of philosophers and everything else in Category:Lists of lists. I've asked at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for feedback, but I'm running out of places and people to ask for input! Suggestions or insights would be appreciated. (please reply at Wikipedia talk:Contents, so that everyone participating can follow and benefit from the feedback. Thanks :) --Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

in my book, all "lists of lists" are disambiguation pages. {{disambig}} are the only cases of what are strictly self-references in article namespace (besides Main Page). Thus, list of languages is a list of lists, and a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

See User_talk:Iamthere#Unblock_requests. What banned user is he a sock of? Please answer on his page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

it's apparently delayed flare-up of the Great 2006 "Aryan Sock-War" (Hkelkar etc.). There was such an incredible amount of bad faith sock-puppetry involved that I have lost all interest in keeping apart individual sock-artists. My talkpage is still semi-protected for all the trolling and abuse that was directed at me by the trolls, and Iamhere was just picking up a trend of half a year ago. I am, of course, perfectly prepared to accept independent reviews of the block. I suppose it would be possible to argue for a parole or similar instead of a ban, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because new accounts are a dime a dozen, and if this user wants to edit Wikipedia or post abuse on talkpages, they'll just keep doing it for as long as they can be bothered to keep it up. My experience is that even the most dedicated trolls will go away after a couple of months if you just rollback+block as they come in without giving them the attention they are looking for (WP:DFTT). If, otoh, their behaviour triggers a lengthy debate with a large number of participants discussing them and their exploits, they'll obviously be encouraged by the impact they create. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Runic alphabet

Hi Dab, I saw that you removed the image of the elder futhark, and I have to ask you since you surprised me with your edit. In what way is the elder futhark off-topic here?--Berig 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

not a big deal, I suppose, but I don't quite see why we should give the Kylver Stone row on the article on the Pforzen buckle? dab (𒁳) 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Dieter. It is not just a pic of the Kylver stone row, it is the elder futhark row which also appears on other objects, like the Vadstena bracteate, the Mariedamm bracteate, Vg 207 and DR IK110. It is the standard listing of the elder futhark with transliteration, something that just helps the casual reader to try his own transliteration of the Pforzen buckle inscription.--Berig 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see -- as I said, it't no big deal. The transliteration is provided, of course, but if you like to add a key to that, it's ok too. The point is that the Vadstena bracteate notably has -od not -do, but that's of course a detail. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal for me either :). I was just curious.--Berig 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there appears to be at least five sources for the elder runic row.

Ög 178 (Vadstena): fuþarkgw hnijïpzs tbemlŋod

Vg 207 (Grumpan): fuþarkgw [...] hnijïp(z) [...] tbeml(ŋ)(o)d

Nä 10 (Mariedamm): fuþarkgwhnijïpzstbemlŋod

G 88 (Kylver): (f)uþarkg(w)hni(j)pezstbemlŋdo

DR IK110 (Lindkær): fuþarkgwhn[ijpïzstbemlŋdo]

The modern representation, as in the picture, appears to be an academic generalization using the first ætt of all (where there is complete agreement), the second ætt of Vadstena/Mariedamm and the third ætt of Kylver (Lindkær's seems to be a reconstruction).--Berig 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Parent Language

Hi again, dab. I just finished writing a first draft of an article entitled Germanic Parent Language. I am expecting one of three things to happen: (1) It is completely ignored, seeing as it doesn't (read: any longer) link to any pages in the mainspace; (2) I am given a royal thrashing for having written it (I've already had one promised to me) and receive half-hearted death-threats (but only half) from certain editors; (3) a few tid-bits of information are gleaned from it to be incorperated elsewhere, and the bulk is cast upon the ever-growing heap of rejected stubs. Somewhere inside, I'm hoping for (4) some gallant senior editor will see the value in it, and suggest it be linked somewhere where it won't cause anyone to lose too much sleep. But I'm not holding my breath on that one. Anyways, could you take a look at it? (And perhaps spare the rod if you decide to go for (2)?) Thanks. Varoon Arya 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

quite a negative attitude you have there. Well, I have no idea why you created this article at "Germanic Parent Language" seeing that we have Proto-Germanic language. It's an obvious {{merge}} candidate. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The attitude comes from observing past events in related pages. Sorry if it appears pessimistic.

Also, a response to your comments on my userpage can be found there. Thanks. Varoon Arya 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis

You are very zealous in promoting your personal point of view concerning the Kurgan hypothesis. However, it is not well done nor "encyclopedic" to recur to the deletion of sourced information in order to promote your views and to smother others. Still, that is what happened to my contribution in the article "Indo European languages". Just because of a label that might have provoked your allergic reactions, you threw away sourced information, including the real homeland analyses of Mallory (proving he didn't even seek to insist on Pontic invasions) and credited investigation pointing to continuity. Mallory did not give a name to his ultimate homeland analysis, this is true, and the modern continuity views might not be justified by the PCT label, a name coined basically by one scholar, that at the same time seeks to promote some contested views of himself. If you insist we could agree on scrapping "paleolithic", not on a dismissal of continuity, that certaintly can count on mainstream support. To the contrary, the undue attention currently given to the Kurgan hypothesis is contradictory to the current status of this theory being: controversal.

By the way, I just can't believe you dismiss a contradiction so easily between low and near to white noise occurrencies of markers, and influential Kurgan invaders that could impose a language (without even mentioning the archeologically unattested pontic influence in western europe). Please mind such ambiguous genetic results can't be presented as a "proof" since other wide spread mesolithic or late paleolithic markers abound in low (or not so low) occurrencies to prove the contrary. You just seem to propose here not to look at genetic evidence at all. Nobody actually says such a thing, this means such an interpretation comes close to OR. Rokus01 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

bullshit. You are the one promoting your personal infatuation with pseudo-scholarship. You want to discuss the PCT, do it at the PCT article, observing proper balance, not at Indo-European langauges, where it is offtopic fringecruft. I will not argue archaeology or genetics with you. The only debate we can have is on the credibility of individual sources per WP:RS. I will not discuss your attempts to contort sources into something they are not in fact saying (WP:SYN). It is clear as day that such behaviour has no place here. If you want to tout a point of view, find somebody who made it in an academic journal first. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I am verifying your claims of the Kurgan hypothesis still being a mainstream hypothesis and being forwarded with arguments that are still valid. What I find is evidence that this theory is hard on its way to become a fringe theory of its own right. Well, you can always say you won't discuss your claims. However, this does not make your position tenable nor does this encourage me to accept your edits. Also, like I told you, the preposition that all thoughts on continuity are tied to PCT is wrong, it is the other way round. As for now, I find no need to congratulate you for having PCT deemed a fringe theory, since this does not help you in persistently cleaning wikipedia from sourced information that contradicts - or better, that overcomes - your Kurgan hypothesis. I'm sorry to say this, and probably you won't take heart to my words, but if somebody is "touting" his fringy POV nonsense, it's you and only you. Were has your spirit gone to compromise? Rokus01 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"hard on its way" - yawn. How about you come back when it is, in fact, on its way, in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. Rokus01, I have never been prepared to compromise with disingenious pov-pushers. Intelligently argued neofascist pov-pushing is just the same to me as dumbly argued Afrocentrist pov-pushing (see below), both are unacceptable, and it is the job of any Wikipedia admin to combat them. I am, as always, fully prepared to compromise with educated bona fide editors who are not trying to subvert Wikipedia wherever they can. Sadly, I cannot count you among their number at this point. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you INSINUATE here I'm a neofascist? You are really playing dirty to have it your way. Probably you missed some discussions I had on Nordic Theory against fascist pov pushing, or my additions to Racism. I am on the verge of escalating your case, I don't think you can be taken seriously. Rokus01 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

do feel free to "escalate my case". Do also feel free to actually deliver quality edits in line with Wikipedia policy. It's a much more rewarding experience to have everyone thank you for your efforts instead of getting frustrated over talkpage bickering. dab (𒁳) 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't even dare to give me a straight answer. So I'll take this as a confirmation. You insinuate me to be a neofascist, and then you cower away and send me to the complaint desk. I almost pity your lack of sociability. I figure you don't even care, that all you are up to is to insult ad hominem now you can't beat with arguments. Well, I can tell you I am not a neofascist, and I will even open my heart in public to tell you I despise fascists and neofascists as much as you probably can't imagine. And how sincere are you in your worries? You already knew from the start I despise the irrational attraction of the Kurgan myth. It reminds me too much to the nazi propaganda that idealized the Scythians for being the aggressive invaders you need for your Kurgan hypothesis. You know this from me, because this is how we met. Still, this discussion only provoked you in teaching me a welcome lesson about what you think is credible. Do you ever bother the opinion of others? Yes, I would despise somebody for changing the truth, as much as I despise fascists for turning this into a profession. Were did you get I have to change facts for proving you are wrong? You are waisting a lot of my time here. And what about your nasty efforts to invalidate archeological records that describe my ancestors as normal people that just tried to survive in a healthy way, by working the plough and raising cattle? Yes, I despise people that want to make "model fascists" out of my ancestors, as if they were murderous animals by definition, for being the products of the inhospitable steppes. I despise your old flea market books whose authors idealize the Germanic invasions and ignore the impact of peaceful Frankish farmers. Were did you read I share this eager to throw the dirt of Hitler around for feeling taller? Where were you when I addressed the failure of one of your protegés to address the folly of the masterrace? So what are you really up to, if it isn't giving facts or credit? Very few people even bother to use sources for their claims to truth. I still think I am one of the good exceptions. Instead, I can give plenty examples of you coming up with conclusions of your own that are not supported by sourced references, and for others you'll insist on academic journals to prove the earth isn't flat. Well, I don't mind to search for such academic journals, and I'll find them because I have confidence there must be some reasonable people out there that know the world is not flat. And this is what makes you angry, isn't it? This is what anger people when they fail to convince and turn out to be the moron they are accusing others of. You should be ashamed of yourself to have been nasty with sincere people that dared to pronounce doubts about your Kurgan theory. I wonder how many of them you managed to cuckoo out from here, violating all WP:AGF. Still, your zeal to kill the messager does not give you the right to lie about me. It does not give you the right to delete sourced information either. Don't bore me with your politics and grow up. Maybe you'll need some education, or help from above. Don't worry, to address your case I'll find the way by myself. Rokus01 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

I removed your last comment - I've never done that before, but here is my reasoning:

You are an admin, you should treat people here with the highest degree of respect and set an example for what civility means.

You said:"Deeceevoice is a well-known Afroentrist pov-pusher with no respect for Wikipedia fundamentals. It would be a waste of time to disect her edits one by one, because they are intended to be controversial. You"

Whatever happened to assuming good faith?

Then you said: If I am going to invest time in this "debate" try to show a little bit of inclination to display cognitive activity.

Totally unhelpful and immature.

And, posting a link to an RFC that's over a year old is just... sad. Don't change the subject, and try to stay civil. I hope you understand. From my perspective you're coming across as abusive, and rather like someone with a vendetta against a user, instead of a calm and rational person who we all can trust to be fair. It's really disturbing. I understand that deeceevoice seems to get you angry, but please try to control your emotions. futurebird 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. Deeceevoice is a known troll, and shouldn't even edit that page. To call me "totally unhelpful and immature" for calling a confused troll a confused troll is, to put it bluntly, totally unhelpful and immature. My emotions have nothing to do with it, I am perfecly civil and calm, and prepared to amicably disagree with any sane and educated editor. How about you focus on the topic, not the editors, and try to help turning this sorry excuse for an article into something that is actually helpful in understanding the phenomenon of Afrocentrism. Just teaming up with any editor that happens to be "pro-Afrocentric" no matter how pathetic their output is unwikilike, disingenious, disruptive, and will not result in your desired revision. dab (𒁳) 16:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And now you accuse me of being a "troll"? Thats hilarious. You can't even justify your own edits. Instead, you result to tacky, little ad hominem attacks. Just weak -- and pretty sorry behavior for an admin. WHat? You think people don't see through the mud you're slinging at me? You flat-out failed to do what is minimally asked of someone who edits already-existing text: give credible reasons. And then you doctored your post to try to make it appear you had tried to do so. Wholesale text reversions without bothering to explain, nasty temper tantrums, bitchiness, personal attacks, disingenuous reediting of the talk page for your benefit. Tsk, tsk, tsk. All that is bad enough for the lowly lumpen, but for an admin? Shame on you! *wagging finger* ;p Good thing you left the discussion. You were simply wasting our time with your bad-faith edits and temper tantrums. deeceevoice 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be talking of "ad hominem attacks" or "temper tantrums", not with your record. Your allegations are completely groundless. You indulged in blatant pov-pushing and I reverted you, that's the long and short of it. I have no interest in bitching contests. This isn't personal. Edit responsibly and you won't even notice I'm there. Keep trolling and I'll keep removing the mess you make. I don't know why you keep repeating that I am an admin. (a) I did not attempt to use my status for leverage at all. (b) Admins are not expected to stand back and smile when an article is savaged by trolls. If I acted as an admin, you'd not be editing right now. As it happens, I prefer to get my hands dirty and actually improve articles rather than slapping blocks on endlessly reincarnating trolling accounts. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear from your antics you don't have the slightest inkling of the meaning of responsible editing. I'll match my edits in this instance with what you did any day of the week -- anytime. In fact, another user reverted your unsubstantiated changes and called you on what you did. What? So, he's a troll, too? Yeah. Right. The record at Afrocentrism is there and quite clear for anyone to read -- after I cleaned up your tampering with the discussion page. Busted.

And I didn't bring up the fact that you're an admin. THe person who reverted your block revert did. I didn't even know. I don't bother with keeping track of such things. And he -- clearly -- brought it up because you're not the average Wikipedian. As an administrator, you're supposed to refrain from precisely the kind of conduct in which you've been engaging. Just keep it up, Bachmann, and you'll go where all incompetent/nasty administrators go. ;p deeceevoice 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you, I dare you to come up with a single troll account for me. Ever. My, my. You're just full of empty bluster today, aren't you? Come on Bachmann. Double-dog dare ya. Put up or shut up. ;p deeceevoice 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

my dear woman, I do advise you to keep down the personal edge, and if possible stay off my talkpage altogether. As far as I know, you are still on probation and may be blocked by any passing admin who judges your attitude is less than constructive. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear man, you're hardly in a position to advise anyone about their tone in this matter. As a matter of fact, I've been extremely charitable in your case. What a hypocrite. And, yeah. I'm done here. You're a waste of my time. deeceevoice 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism and 3RR

I've been asked to look at the Afrocentrism article as an uninvolved admin, and noticed that you have reverted 3 times today. Please don't revert again, as that is considered a violation of 3RR and may lead to a block. Please stay civil on the talk page, and come to me with any concerns, as I'm going to keep an eye on the article for awhile. I've considered it and am going to fully protect the article for a day or two so that you all can cool your heels. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted blatant trolling. I argue that [14]

• "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
• Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.

seeing that this is about an editor with an arbcom ruling against her disruptive behaviour, it should be clear as day that I was actually reverting disruption, and not a serious contribution. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lurs.jpg and copyright

Hi,

back in 2004 you uploaded this image, and claimed that it satisfied PD rules.. someone's asked for a confirmation of that.

Offhand, it seems that they were probably photographed relatively recently (from the quality of the photo), and normally that means that the copyright rests with the photographer (or whoever he assigned it to). But the page doesn't state who the copyright holder (if any) is.

Help? (feel free to reply on the lurs talk page) --Alvestrand 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sun and Moon AfD (Middle-earth)

The initial prod for Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) seems to have been prompted by the events at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in the Moon (Middle-earth). See my comments here. I'm going to raise this at the AfD, but I thought I should point out the background to you. Carcharoth 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am always open for merge suggestions, but deletion is out of the question, come on. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning edit warring

In at least two of the articles that we both edit I have noticed that you frequently revert war when content disputes arise. This is a bad idea for several reasons, the main reasons being that firstly revert warring never resolves the disputes and secondly revert warring almost always results in the article in question being fully protected. Race of ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism being the two articles in question, both of which are fully protected due to edit warring. I want to ask you to try to simply stop edit warring. I'm leaving this message to you specifically because you are an administrator and I am holding you at higher standards than the other editors who involve themselves in those edit wars. It does not matter who you're reverting or why you are reverting it, continuing to edit war is unjustified regardless. If the editors are vandals then you warn them and block them if they continue, you don't edit war with them. If the editors are making non-vandal but still problematic edits then you give them sufficient warnings and if they continue, then you report them to ANI. If that doesn't work then be bold and block them for disruptive editing. You don't edit war with them, the edits will eventually be reverted once they have been blocked if their edits are truly disruptive. If you are hesitant to block them because you aren't sure if their edits are truly disruptive then clearly edit warring with them won't make much difference either. Please take my comments into consideration. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I never revert war against reasonable editors. Reverting obvious trolling is a necessary evil until we get more tough on editors that show no signs of being capable of reason. But you are right that I may need a break from these topics. I must insist that I do believe in WP:ENC and WP:SPADE, and that I do not agree that I have let down the "high standards" expected of admins one bit. I am, indeed, upholding the core standards expected of anyone wishing to edit. It is no secret that Wikipedia gets all kinds, including mind-boggling stupidity. I hold that people cannot be asked to show patience with this. Wikipedia principles of consensus building is a great principle between intelligent and good faith editors. I am perfectly happy to compromise and amicably disagree with such. In cases where it is clear that one or the other, or both, is lacking, I have come to see the need for the strict enforcement of "provide encyclopedic material or begone" approach. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI on you

Started by Rokus: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dbachmann. - Merzbow 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)