User talk:Dbachmann

generic {{talkheader}}:

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

---

Archives:

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / [1] 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

---

WPMILHIST Template

Hi! Just wondering if you can do me a little favour.......can you please add a place for the Pakistani military history task force on the Template:WPMILHIST? (just like how the other country task forces have their additioned to it)........apparently, I need an admin for it. I'd really appreciate if you help out....Thanks Teckgeek (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Marie-Rose

I gave him a 24 hour block as a sock. Did you notice my Viking question a bit above? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

a sock of whom? was Rose-Marie banned? I don't understand why you would block a sock for a day: either it is an abusive sock of another account, and as such should be banned indefinitely, or it is just a user behaving disruptively, deserving a temporal block or misbehaviour, not for being a sock. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Rose-mary (talk · contribs) is effectively permabanned. In this case, we can just slap the socks with blocks as they show up, no need to waste time over this. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've added Glotz but also Robinson to the main article. I agree, no need to waste time, delete and block. I didn't want to put a long block on an IP address, although if this continues we may need a range block which I've never done. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just done a range-block, see my log. Unless it is really necessary, you should avoid rangeblocks of more than 10 bit or so (numbers smaller than /26); short blocks of /24 (8 bit) and below shouldn't be a problem unless you hit AOL or similar. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JeanVinelorde

Hello Dab, User:JeanVinelorde has recently been changing everything once again, just look at his history and you will see everything that he is changing. Also I am pretty sure that he is a puppet, how can we make sure that we do not have a puppet in our hands? Malik Danno (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

look, I cannot babysit all the world's Assyrians or Syriacs indefinitely. Can you please try and enforce WP:CONSENSUS on these articles? --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have seen that many don't respect consensuses ... hence the existence of the Syriac people page, if you are unwilling to help out, can you please direct me to an admin who would. Thank-you. Malik Danno (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

what I am saying is that you do not need an admin to revert the recreation of the Syriac people cfork. Just do it. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

but won't that lead to edit wars and other immature bullshit like that? Malik Danno (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR should take care of that. Talk about "immature bullshit", this is what the Syriac/Assyrian topics have been like for years. We now have a chance to get some stability by sticking to an awkward but extremely neutral compromise. --dab (𒁳) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yoga

Could you please comment on a proposal to more strongly present the position that Harappan seals are figures in yogic positions at Talk:Yoga#Proposed_rewrite_of_archeological_evidence? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Oghuz turkish

Doesn't it seem like User:Wayiran? Alefbe (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at his recent edits. Shouldn't he be stopped? Alefbe (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AE

For your information: [2] Grandmaster 05:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Movses Khorenatsi

There is an ongoing discussion among those pesky Armenian editors and their ugly Movses Khorenatsi article that you might want to check out. Or has the damage been done? TA-ME (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure your tone is bound to make them more amenable to reason, but yes, they are being silly. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian transliteration

Hi. I noticed you're the one starting the Romanization of Armenian article. Now, I was wondering where did you get the transliteration values for Hubschmann-Meillet system? Particularly, that է = ê, ռ = r̄ and օ = ô? I could not find Antoine Meillet and Heinrich Hübschmann, Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg, 1913 online, which is the primary source, but the ones I did find, e.g this or this or this claim է = ē, ռ = ṙ and օ = ō. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the printed 1913 source in front of me when I wrote this. I am confident it is correct (but perhaps there are minor differeces between editions?). But the differences are minimal, and your online source states they are "following the Huebschmann-Meillet (HM) tradition as closely as possible". I don't know why it wasn't "possible" to follow them exactly, but there you are. --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oghuz turkish

I have blocked Oghuz turkish (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Spider 2200 (talk · contribs). This has been confirmed through CheckUser by Dominic. If you want, he can give an on-wiki confirmation, but he is unrelated to Wayiran (talk · contribs). Khoikhoi 04:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the edit history, it's quite obvious that spider_2200 is a sock-puppet itself. Alefbe (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

we are looking at a swamp of combined sock and meatpuppery. It is impossible to say how many distinct people there are, but I say is isn't relevant, since in effect there is little difference between operating socks, or conspiring with other people off-wiki and have them operate your socks for you. This is the regular crazy nationalist tag-team effort, nothing new. I'm not sure it is worth anyone's while figuring out who is whose sock exactly - WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I've undone your reverts on Germanic Europe and Germanic peoples - since those edits are isolated from the current move discussion. On that note, I've left a reply on the Germanic peoples talk page. Lingamondo (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you certainly have a cheek. You tell me that I'm edit warring, after I've reverted you once, and you've reverted me twice? If anyone is edit warring, it's you.

You're not listening to me. The things that you reverted aren't anything to do with the move discussion. The edits I made moved a chunk of text from Germanic Europe to Germanic peoples (since that was what the paragraph was describing).

The map is another issue, and if you wish to discuss that, revert that alone. For this reason, I'm reverting you, and if you wish to, remove the map until we have discussed further. Lingamondo (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

you are the one trying to introduce weird changes to long standing articles. I am not defending "my version", I am reverting your nonsense to the standing consensus revisions. You obviously have no idea how things work here, in spite of your apparent experience at simple:. I ask you again to read up on the introductory pages which you were pointed to on your talkpage. You obviously do not have the first clue about the topics you are trying to edit. This may not matter much at simple-wiki, but it certainly does on en-wiki, on article with a history of expert attention such as Germanic peoples. At this point I may also point you to WP:DISRUPT and warn you that the sort of show you are giving at the moment may quickly lead to WP:BLOCKs. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* you're not exactly the civil user I'd hoped you'd be. I have taken the effort upon me to remove the map which you disagree with. Now can you explicitly state why you wanted it removed, so we can proceed with discussion. Lingamondo (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

look, I do not wish to invest any time in "disputes" as groundless as this one. I am not going to "explain" why the map of current Germanic languages is misplaced at the head of the Germanic peoples article just because you ask me to. I will also not "explain" why I will not be enthusiastic about a picture of a penguin, or the Taj Mahal. Ok? Try WP:3O. If you can convince any user that what you are trying to do makes sense, there may be a debate in this. I just happened to be the first user to revert your antics. I have no doubt that others will do the job for me if I let this lie for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hellenic languages

Hi, I think we could do with your input at Talk:Hellenic languages, especially its relation to your old Proto-Greek article. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiestud (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

?

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I am a partisan?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not "a partisan" -- "partisan (adj.)" I don't suppose you want to declare you aren't?

User:JeanVinelorde

Need help blocking? I can of course easily see that he's a tendentious POV-pushing account, but the sock claim is a bit difficult to test for an outsider. But if you can give me a bit of a pointer showing the link to the sockmaster, he's gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced that JeanVinelorde is a sock of banned user AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). The main clue is his signature stupidity of failing to oppose the numerically stronger Assyrianist faction within Wikipedia policy, which would actually have a good chance of success, and just creating random pov-forks instead. I do not assume that two independent supporters of the Arameanist pov would be likely to show the exact same type of dense-headedness. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Confirmed as "likely" by Checkuser too, so: blocked. Send a package of Swiss chocolates to Dmcdevit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah. once I receive my huge shipping of sweets from the various Syriac patriarchs for my pains in babysitting their youngsters. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much syrup in their stuff. Swiss chocolates are better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Category of Anti-(Nationality) in this case Anti-Turkism, Anti-Armenianism etc...

The Category Anti-Turkism page is relevant as the "organizations" (some of whom are listed as terrorits organizations by the U.S. and the E.U.) and people who fought, fought the Turkish state and/or individuals for ideological/nationalistic/political purposes as the Turkish state was an obstacle for thier goals. In case of nationalism Anti-Turkism is totally relevant and applicable as their nationalisms and actions clashed or still clashes with Turkish nationalism and the Turkish state, and vice versa. The same applies for the Category Anti-Armenianism. So for the sake of partiality either these two categories should be erased or should stay. The same applies for the other Anti-(Nationality) Categories as well. But not one or the other.

P.S. I am neither Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian or Greek; I am Iranian if anybody was curious about me. But I don't think that is relevant either.

Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Your nationality is indeed irrelevant. What matters is the bias in your edits. If your interest is in exposing anti-Turkish sentiment wherever possible, that is fair enough, but you will have to hold yourself answerable to the strictest application of WP:RS. This means, you can insert a discussion of "anti-Turkism" wherever you like, provided you can produce an academic reference discussing the topic in terms of anti-Turkism, but not otherwise. Simple, isn't it. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to discuss this at CfD where I have proposed the category for deletion [3]. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting an academician and other persons who did not participate in any violent acts, in this category was excessive, I agree, but for the organizations some of whom are listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the E.U. and some of the individuals who are/were leaders or members of these organizations and are branded as terrorists, and did order or participate in violent acts (such as assinations or bombings) is entirely appropriate. --Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

the point is that it isn't enough if the categorization is "appropriate". The condition is that you have proven it to be appropriate, before you add the category. In other words, the burden of proof lies with you. You cannot add the category and leave it to others to provide the references substantiating it even if there are such references. You provide these references, and then you add the category, for each article seprarately. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history

Yet again, Reddi wants to include prehistory in this, I don't understand why as he doesn't discuss it - I reverted giving a reason, he replaced it with no reason. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reddi is ready for a long ban. He simply isn't helping the project in any way at this point. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

Hi Dbachmann, I hope you are doing fine. I have a question regarding this map, because it contains a small mistake. The reference to "Turkic tribes" in it is historically not correct, because the first Turkic tribe - the Ashina - was mentioned 500 years later. Maybe you should replace the expression with "Altaic tribes". See also de:Türk (Stamm). Thank you. Tajik (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, that would properly be "Proto-Turkic" tribes, Xiongnu or similar. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I think that "Proto-Turkic" is still not correct. The Xiongnu were not "proto-Turkic" either, though they may have contained some proto-Turkic tribes. The geographical location suggests settlements of Altaic tribes (proto-Turkic & proto-Mongolic, such as Xianbey). But at ca. 200 AD, the region might also have been Indo-European Tokharian (Kushan?!). Anyway, I think it's the safest to remove the word "Turkic" and replace it with "Altaic" or simply "Inner Asian tribes". Tajik (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

yes. You see, the Turkic or Tocharian question isn't the point of the map. The "Yuezhi" are supposed to represent the Tocharians. I agree "Altaic tribes" would be a good solution, but I don't know if I can still find the layered .xcf file to easily modify this map I uploaded three years ago. It's not a big enough deal to me to invest two hours in fixing it. --dab (𒁳) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Assyrian page move

I have replied on my talk page; I prefer to keep discussions in one place. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The pages on the early Safavid shahs are pretty inadequate. I'm not particularly a specialist in this field but there again I haven't seen any real experts editing there. Unsurprisingly, the biggest draw is the Safavid dynasty article - check out the ten talk page archives full of the usual ethnic bitchery (of the Iranic versus Turkic kind). So I appreciate being able to make a few improvements without some little <valued editor> throwing rocks at me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the time to grok this atm. But we both know it is time for a solid, biting "ethnic bitchery gets you blocked" policy. --dab (𒁳) 18:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That's the main thing. This is just one example. (Although it's obvious that ANI is completely hopeless at dealing with any of this). --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

let me tell you that getting no reaction from ANI is one of the better experiences you can have. You are rather more likely to get some admin doing something completely stupid along the lines of Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, maybe. I think my report was just a tad complicated for the average IRC admin. From what I've seen over the past year, ANI is only for dealing with pre-teens emptying their potties over one another, fake suicide threats, Wiki-politicians trying to prove how "nice" they are by unblocking noted jackasses and the eternal Giano Wars. --Folantin (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Moses of Choren

Hi. Could you please check the latest edits to that article? They just returned the article to its original state, claiming the 5th century dating as a fact. Grandmaster 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I rolled back the last bunch of edits by Marshal Bagramyan, which basically returned the article to its original state and removed most of the criticism of the 5th century dating. I find it strange that after such a long discussion and tons of sources provided he can come and just suppress the info about the later dating, as if it does not even exist or it is something not worthy of any attention. Grandmaster 05:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

sure, this is just "ethnic bitchery" as Folantin calls it in the section above this one. Before I edited Wikipedia, I never guessed how many people there are with an obsession over their ethnic identity. And these aren't rural yokels as a rule, mostly these are alienated tech students trying to compensate for feeling lost. You would never have guessed that technological institutes would turn out to be breeding irrationality and ethnic hatemongery, but then the human soul isn't linear and the planners often end up with the opposite of what they bargained for because they do not take that into account. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I don't know about the educational background of the people involved in this discussion, but they are all young. The thing is that in many places where the ethnic conflicts take place history is just a tool for justification of claims for a certain territory. It's like, we came here first, and the place is ours, as if history really matters when the international community looks into the territorial disputes. Historical figures are often also seen not as real persons, but as symbols. Therefore every nation has its own patriotic interpretation of history, and questioning such interpretations often causes hostile reaction. Younger people are usually more zealous. With regard to the article in question, something needs to be done to get certain people to see that Moses of Chorene is not seen by majority of serious experts as a 5th century figure. Not that they cannot see it, they just don't want to see. --Grandmaster 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protected. All our edits have been removed. I'll try to follow the DR procedures, to get the issue resolved. Grandmaster 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a third party opinion to resolve the dispute, please see here: [4] Grandmaster 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fertile Crescent

Thanks for the message, please be sure not to remove any non-subcats while you revert. Izzedine (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numeral system etc.

Hello, thanks for taking a look at the Hindu-Arabic numeral system article. I've been wary of editing it because it seems to stir up pointless regionalism each time. I think all the articles should be merged into Arabic numerals or Hindu-Arabic numerals (I don't care what it's called); I suspect the distinction between the "numerals" and the "numeral system", although sensible, is something created on Wikipedia to broker peace. ([5]) What do you think should be done about these? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

you are right. The articles Hindu-Arabic numeral system, Arabic numerals and Indian numerals have been kept separate in order to appease the angry young Hindu editors. But it's not a problem. While it may be weird to treat the "system" apart from its glyphs, the important thing is to keep the information factual and to the point. Merging and splitting considerations are secondary.

This is all less than obvious at first glance, but upon consideration, it becomes clear that the "system" is the combination of algorism plus a set of glyphs. Take away algorism/positional notation, 0 (number) and Arabic numerals/Indian numerals from the "system" article and you are left with nothing. But it can always discuss the history of these things, which is why I think History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system at least should be merged. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The "system" is what is called "positional notation" today. It's not a name for something else; it's the same thing (and "algorism" is also the same thing), and the names "Hindu-Arabic" or "Arabic" are used for distinguishing it from "Roman numerals" (again, no one finds it useful to talk about the Roman numerals by themselves and not the system, or vice-versa). Keeping several articles about the same topic is not a good thing; it misrepresents and confuses the issue. I agree with you that the only point of having a separate article would be to discuss the history. Since it seems you have more experience dealing with "angry young editors" than I do (I used to mostly edit mathematics articles), you probably have some insight on what's the cleanest way of doing this. :) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dharmacakra

There is a nationalist troll there denying that it is the symbol of Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And also Ashoka Chakra. Mitsube (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ásatrúarfélagið

This may interest you. Haukur (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Subhash Kak

Just noting - I replied to you a week or two ago, waiting for your reply. NittyG (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another sock

User:Emperor of world seems to be new sock. Alefbe (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

noinclude tags

In Template:History of Kosovo you should put the template like this:

<noinclude>{{NPOV}}</noinclude>

Otherwise, every article transcluding the template is getting tagged with that tag POV. I can't change it myself because it's protected. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

stunningly, this was precisely my intention. We're locking down a template because it is disputed? Then there should bloody well be an npov warning in every place this template appears. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

well, lol, I don't quite agree with that philosophy, but if you think it's necessary.... (Anyways, I can't avoid feeling very amused when I imagine all the confused editors that will be left puzzling over why their Kosovo article has now a POV tag whose addition doesn't appear on the article article) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I think I have fixed it by removing any images from the template, and requiring anyone wishing to insert any image to get some sort of consensus first. We can't waste time and energy into such thumbnail-wars. Navigation templates are for nagivation, not for games of "capture the flag". You want to put a flag there, explain why and then get a consensus. --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian origins

At the moment, my main interest is in making some sense of this and getting rid of the nonsense (like an idea in an 1841 book being thirty years ago). I'm not bothered with where it is until that's done, then I think will be the time to see if there is justification for a separate article. What I hope I have done is sort out the GFDL problem. Shall we just leave it where it is for the nonce? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Etruscan origins

Do you still support merging this article? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support you in turning your attention to some topic where you can claim to have some hazy half-clue. --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the information in the article is wrong, cause if you think that your wrong! Don't be mean.... --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

please speak English. That doesn't even parse. I've seen you prancing around with the Etruscan topics yesterday[6]. Please stop it. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. From your talkpage, it appears you get into trouble even when editing a pop culture topic like "Stargate". Now you are attacking an academic topic with in same style that annoyed the people watching the Stargate topics. I am frankly unsurprised this doesn't seem to be going well. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with having an article about Etruscan origins. To make one thing clear i didn't write the article so stop blaming me for the articles bad shape. Have you heard of WP:CIVIL? I've cleaned up the Etruscan origins page today and expanded it, would you denie that? The reason for me coming into an arguement with the Stargate film was that he didn't agree with the "plot" section which i didn't even write. The other users backed me up saying the article was "much better and longer" alb "even if it had some mistakes". --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Exciting news...yawn

Another incarnation of Ararat Arev has been back spamming that "Armenian Highland" site[7]. Just thought you might want to know. --Folantin (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

pathetic. Does he ever leave Richardson, TX? He might at least make some half-assed attempt to conceal his identity by using some bogus account or identity. It seems his heart isn't really in it any more. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Ararat Arev might be back - but so is Moreschi.--Folantin (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

The trouble with people like Wyatt is that, if you do delete the article, a true-believer will come along and start if all over again, but telling us why he's so right. Better to have it out there where we can all see it. PiCo (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

that's not a valid reason. We can easily WP:SALT or redirect-protect the title if we decide this is what should be done. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish inventions and discoveries

Since you started this, perhaps you would like to contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

This article could probably use a couple more eyes. You may find some of the comments on Hiberniantears' talk page related to this subject interesting as well. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Elamite cuneiform

Hey dab,

I've added the syllabic glyphs to Achaemenid Elamite cuneiform. However, I cannot identify qa/ka4 and tu4 with the materials I have available. Could you help out?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish people

Hi I plan to contribute and write portions for the article soon. I would appreciate your oversight of the article, review of my edits and anything you might think is not scholarly. Thank you--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, probably the most comprehensive article on origin of Kurds is Encyclopedia of Islam. There is also an article on Kurdish languages in Iranica as well as some other articles I have collected. I will send you these privately and I hope you can help me edit these articles. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

template:lang

Hi. I was looking through Common.css and suddenly noticed the definitions for CSS pseudo class :lang. I dawned on me that these seem to be doing nothing atm. IE6 doesn't support :lang, and for every other browser, it is resetting what is being set (the inherit is a trick to make something IE6 specific). I want on quest to find where this came from :D

• original addition to Common.css
• Proposal on VP/T
• original discussion

As you may note, an IP user recently added the same objection to the original discussion. I think the reasoning behind this error is that the Unicode and IPA classes above there had to be IE specific. Your original proposal was probably build on what was written in those classes, but unfortunately fails. However, if i were to correct this... the question comes to mind. Are these font-selections for languages useful on any other platform but IE ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

hm, I seem to remember that I thought this wasn't going to work for any browser but wanted to put this down because it could work in principle, or with future browsers. Seeing that this is something I did two years ago, I may be excused if my recollection is a bit hazy. If you have an idea how to make this work, please do go ahead! --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these all fonts that need to be manually installed for scripts not supported by current operating systems ? Or is it only useful on Windows ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

the general idea is to give, for rarely supported scripts, a list of fonts supporting them, so that the browser will be able to pick them if by happy chance they are installed on the system. This is an approach that was pursued in various "language support templates" across Wikipedia. My role was to try and stash that into the css in the context of the move of all language markup to the {{lang}} template. There are some leftovers, such as Template:Script/Nastaliq (see {{script}}). The general idea is that the html should only give a xml:lang tag -- possibly including a script specification such as "sux-Xsux" for Sumerian cuneiform, "hit-Xsux" for Hittite cuneiform, but "sux-Latn", "hit-Latn" for Romanizations -- and font recommendations for the browser based on the xml:lang tag should be left to the css. If you have an idea how to implement this properly, please help out.

Obviously, the fonts supported by "current" operating systems is variable over time. I did not invest too much effort in this because of the hopefully not completely misguided expectation that in a few years, all major operating systems will come with full Unicode fonts, including the most obscure codepages, out-of-the-box. Our css tweaks are only relevant as long as this happy age hasn't quite arrived. --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I understand. In that light. Since the CSS is not supported by all browsers, and requires the lang attribute, which is only set by our lang templates, I think it is best to remove it all together. The style's are also defined in the lang templates, and those definitions work in all browsers. Where widely used, we can use classes (as we already have the Unicode/IPA classes) and use those in the lang templates instead of the style definitions they have. The idea is fun, but when it doesn't work for many of our users, but does add a lot of KBs to every pageview, then we need to cut our losses :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

you have a point. But I do not understand "the style's are also defined in the lang templates". My concern is that I do not want font definitions at the level of Wikipedia templates. It may be best to take the position that Unicode is Unicode, and proper rendering of properly formatted Unicode is none of our concern but must be fixed at the user's end. We can compile Help: pages for that, but we shouldn't go out of our way to produce workarounds for browser issues. --dab (𒁳) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But remember that all CSS that is in Common.css is downloaded/cached for each page that is viewed. As such any CSS that is only used in a limited set of wikipedia pages (for a limited set of browsers, has hardly any benefit to using inline CSS. When this styling is only used/useful combined with a specific template (because it needs the "lang" tag, added by the template), then there is also little cause for concern in terms of maintainability (the other reason to use a centralized stylesheet). Even more so, if we need to KEEP the template specific CSS because the centralized CSS is not recognized by IE6, then there is no benefit at all. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry about traffic issues too much. This stuff is cached, and downloaed once per session at most, if even that. --dab (𒁳) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New findings

Shouldn't we be doing something about [8] and [9]? Let me know. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

this seal is known to contain "linguistic information". Good luck proving this conclusively without any further data to build upon.

If you check the Indus script article, you will find this recentism already covered. Of course it sounds more exciting if you pipe it through the tabloid press first.

I am a bit disappointed with Mahadevan's reaction. It is correct that "there is solid archaeological and linguistic evidence to show that the Indus script is a writing system encoding the language of the region (most probably Dravidian)." This doesn't mean that there is any chance of ever deciphering it with confidence, there simply isn't sufficient data. He admits that he has no idea what the study tried to do, yet he is up in arms against the study being denounced as garbage. Well, there is a good chance that it is garbage, and it is irrational to take criticism of a crappy 2009 study as an attack on the dignity of the Indus script. There may or may not be linguistic content in the inscriptions. We're not going to be able to tell. Consider the Luwian hieroglyphs: they are mostly logographic, but they do contain some linguistic data. It would have been completely hopeless to figure this out based on a bunch of seal impressions, yet this is the task faced with the Indus script. The Luwian hieroglyphs have only been deciphered because there were bilinguals. As long as there is no Indus bilingual, people should just forget about breakthroughs in decipherment. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, your reaction seems strange and expected. In Wikipedia pages, thanks to the Voice-of-India mafia and others like you, the IVC script was sidelined as a non-script, then it was sidelined as being non-Dravidian and what now? You are going to show one seal and claim that it does not look like linguistic information? So you evaluate claims based on how good they look to you, eh? When I see Chinese pictograms, I cannot possible imagine them standing for anything, but they do, right? Not to mention that we haven't had a chance to look at the actual paper owing to the fact that it is a paid-subscription issue. So you haven't checked the methodology, data, findings, etc but you are simply not convinced. Well, cannot really help it. I am going to write it up with these findings under decipherment claims. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] (talk · contribs) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read a word of the above. How on earth do you conclude from "paid subscription" that "we haven't had a chance to look at it"? Was that the royal we or something? If you haven't even looked at the paper, why are you telling me what to think about it? Also, the seal I showed you isn't even IVC. It is an example of a deciphered script containing linguistic information. I included it to illustrate my point about the Luwian hieroglyphs. Perhaps you want to spend another two minutes trying to figure out what this is even about.

The Indus script is, of course, a "script". Nobody disputes the signs "stand for something", wth are you even talking about. It may or may not be fully logographic. The entire point at the moment is that the recent study is worthless. Learn to defend studies based on their merit, and not based on whether they happen to say what you like to hear.

Sheesh. I am not looking for a feud here, ok? You asked me a question in good faith, and I gave you an informed answer. You are free to learn something or to leave it. No need to lash out at me, ok? Go do something else now. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I too read the paper and the supplementary material (which is much more informative) and here is my 2c FWIW: There is nothing wrong with using information theoretic measures like entropy, conditional entropy in an exploratory study to see if one can use them to distinguish non-linguistic and linguistic systems, and different kinds of linguistic systems. However, the main and glaring problem with the paper is the two non-linguistic systems (labeled Type 1 and Type 2) that the authors chose to show that their metrics of choice are useful. One can, in fact analytically compute the conditional entropies for their non-linguistic systems and it seems that their choices are designed to be as far from the linguistic systems as possible; it is easy to tweak the non-linguistic systems symbol probability distribution slightly such that their conditional entropies would have been indistinguishable from the linguistic systems. This, of course, invalidates any conclusion the authors draw from their graph,^§ and should have been apparent to any informed reviewer. (§ : To be clear, the conclusion can, of course, still be true; its just that the paper's evidence is worthless)
PS: The linguistic symbols of the seal from Troy are trivial to decipher; starting from 3 o'clock it says, "When the Moon pulls on the tides, the bodyless deer and the fish with the detached extra head use the telephone with the antenna". I'm shocked that no one has understood this till now; should I send my results to Science or Nature ? :) Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

indeed. "non-linguistic dataset" indeed. Hey, my Teddy bear looks more like a dolphin than like a neutron star. Ergo, bears are dolphins, quick, call Nature!

Dab, I am not lashing out at you, it is still in good faith. I am just expressing my opinion of how you have "interpreted" it. That's all. I am still disappointed of how you find it worthless. Well, as I said, never mind. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] (talk · contribs) 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're on Jimbo's talk page!

See [10] Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

banned trolls ranting to Jimbo? Hardly a novelty. Now Jimbo on my talkpage, that would be a "first" even after half a decade on Wikipedia, but the converse doesn't really raise eyebrows. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input, if you have time. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like some dualism with your pantheism?

I've added some quotes on beliefs. The whole article is very close to home so I'd appreciate someone looking over my shoulder and telling me if I'm wandering into obsessive detail. The main thing I have yet to add is an expanded section on rituals. (But I also have a lot of work left tidying up the references and improving coherency.) Haukur (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical rulers categories

And we have [[Category:14th-century BC Biblical rulers]], [[Category:13th-century BC Biblical rulers]], [[Category:12th-century BC Biblical rulers]] etc, sub-categories of [[Category:Biblical rulers by century]]. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

are you telling me this because I have just blanked them? I would cfd them but I frankly cannae be bothered. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ah, I see they have a guardian, Carlaude (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

of course there is an internal chronology of OT genealogy. But Wikipedia cannot use that for its categorization, that would be {{in-universe}}. We don't list Seth under 39th century BC births. The "source" behind this stuff appears to be kingscalendar.com,a website expounding (sigh) R.P.BenDedek's Research results into the Chronological Synchronisms found in the Biblical Books of Kings and Chronicles and linked from many of these articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You hadn't blanked them when I posted. Kingscalendar is linked [11] and we even have an article on it King's Calendar which should probably go to AfD. But is there any reason not to just remove the links? Do they meet WP:EL? Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did blank them, but I was reverted by Carlaude (talk · contribs). I also removed the EL from a bunch of articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So now? Carlaude seems to be claiming they have to stay in the category while the category exists. This is all nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot delete a category and empty the category. "Please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." It circumvents all procedures. Please do one. If you still want to do the other, then wait a week or so. --Carlaude ^(talk) 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. I removed articles from categories since their inclusion was completely unsubstantiated by anything in the article. As a result we are left with a bunch of empty categories. These empty categories can hang around for a week if you insist, but I can already tell you that there won't be any articles that would fit in them. Our categorization guidelines also tell you that you should only create a category if there are at least a couple of possible entries. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

It looked to me rather that you tried to REDIRECT all the categories, and then once they were semi-invisible you began to empty them. I dought I will fight these but I want other editors to be able object on even ground if they wish.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

These categories in particular can be seen as problematic because there is at best minimal evidence to support inclusion of articles in them. Most of the potential entries have no real certain timing, and may even be said to be of dubious factuality, so it can't be said with any particular certainty that any articles included in most of them necessarily belong there. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The ghost of languages past

Hello. Re this edit, please note that the following dictionaries say:

• Oxford American Dictionary:

early 19th cent.:, from Dutch, of unknown origin

• American Heritage Dictionary:

Dutch, from Middle Dutch spooc

• Merriam-Webster Collegiate:

Dutch; akin to Middle Low German spōk ghost

Date: 1801

I don't have online access to the full OED. Rivertorch (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

East West dichotomy

Good faith. Disagreement about 'East West dichotomy' re-directed to 'Cultural hemispheres'. It deserves its own entry, since it is a philosophical concept (see quotes, references, books etc.). Otherwise, nice work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura china (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not so much redirected as moved it because I thought that was a less clunky title, but you can also move it back, it's not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Katha Upanishad

I think the article needs to be semi-protected. There have been multiple anons vandalizing there. Mitsube (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your cat of Essence-Energies distinction

You made a very incorrect addition to the article dab. You added the very thing that the argument opposes as being what the argument is for. [12] The distinction is made between the created world and the energies that make up the created world and the being of God because of the West making God's creation and God's being equal to one and another and yet two forms of being -aka a dichotomy. The argument states that the energy of the created world, that energy as is all energy is "uncreated". All that is uncreated has the essence of God but can also be a reality of God. Hence there is no dichotomy between God the Father and God the Son. Or God the Spirit and the essence of God. Distinction can be make without the components of distinction being in opposition or equal. But something in order for it to be a dichotomy has to by definition be divided into two parts. That's why the distinction is made between dab being a mankind thing (ousia) and dab being a individual or person. That's a set of distinctions that does not indicate a [[[dichotomy]] or division. That's why the argument is called the Essence-Energies distinction and not the Essence-Energies dichotomy. Why because one can make a distinction in explaining something without cutting it into pieces and thereby destroying it as it is. As Mether shows here it is not a dichotomy its a.....distinction.[13] Distinction in to acknowledge but not to separate or divide to cut or asunder. This is the argument of energy. That argument has caused many of the conflicts in world. To the East for example atheism, nihilism, gnosticism (pagan sophistry or nihilism) is a denial of the existence of the uncreated aka a denial of energy. Since here is made of dunamis (potential energy or power or force) or energeia (action activity). It is the argument of energy that caused the whole philosophy movement, against sophistry (the denial of the existence of energy or a thing in itself). The Orthodox East don't really call it Metaphysics as much as Ontology. Uncreated and supernatural are meta-scientific to the Orthodox as in gnosiology you can't get gnosis from gnosis. Energy is the validation for Orthodox of the uncreated(supernatural) in the created as the metaphysical(supernatural) in the physical(natural). Both complimentary to one another not separate. As knowledge is created(by experience) gnosis as knowledge (is created) by the experience of the uncreated. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am struggling to follow your highly abstract dichotomy, or distinction, between dichotomy and distinction. I hope you realize that the tomos in diochotomy is purely metaphorical, in the sense of "drawing a line (or distinction) between two concepts". Fwiiw, the etymological meaning of dichotomy is "to cut apart", and the etymological meaning of distinction is "to pluck apart". No divine powers were either cut or plucked in this mental operation. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

dab it has never been called a dichotomy in Eastern Orthodoxy theology. You can find no source that I know of as Eastern Orthodox that will call it the Essence-Energies dichotomy. Barlaam accused Palamas of that very thing at the councils about the teaching and it was the Greek church with it's Greek word dichotomy who chooses distinction and who names the teaching and repeats the teaching as they have formulated it. This is an encyclopedia not dab struggling. What you have done is introduce a different and openly opposed label onto a teaching. It you want you can change the cat from dichotomy to distinction. Your categorization of it as such implies that it is a duality or that Palamas is teaching polytheism under the heading of pantheism or henotheism. If you can find a better English word for distintion without division I can almost guarantee that the teaching can get renamed to that word over distinction. Please remove the misleading characterization of the article that your addition implies.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry LoveMonkey, but describing creation in terms of energies vs. essences is a dichotomy. The dichotomy is of course due to the humans describing creation, and not to the creator. I find your implied suggestion that we need a Category:Distinctions besides Category:Dichotomies rather pointless. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is your interpretion and your categorization and it can not be sourced. According to the teaching itself it is explicitly not a dichotomy. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" Daniel Moynihan

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

well, I am not going to have a prolongued correspondence with you on this point, so I guess I won't revert you if you remove the category. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I think very highly of you and would not revert without discussion. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protections

With regards to Odin, would you have a problem setting an expiry to the semi-protection? Yes there has been a recent spat of IP vandalism, but in the last 2 months I also see some good faith edits from anons. Indefinite seems a bit of a jump for a non-BLP. Perhaps 30 days? I also note that your talk page itself is has been semi-protected since Nov '08. You may wish to review the recent addition in the protection policy here: Wikipedia:PROT#User pages. –xeno ^talk 16:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with an expiry after 30 days. In my experience, "indefinite" semiprotections as often as not last for less long than that. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in the present case, Odin had been protected five months before I came across it... And in a recent partial cleaning of WP:INDEFSEMI I found articles that had been protected for upwards of 2 years! (Albeit, this dates back to the days before we could set expiries - nonetheless...) cheers, –xeno ^talk 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that it is possible to disagree on this, but I have no poblem with well-developed articles being semiprotected indefinitely. Admins doing "cleaning of WP:INDEFSEMI" mostly just create work for other admins doing the reprotection after a short while. If there are anons who really have an important point they want to make can always use the talkpage.--dab (𒁳) 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Venus of Schelklingen

On 14 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Venus of Schelklingen, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

You might be interested in this as you've edited Ronald Hutton and know about Max Dashu. We have an IP editing here and making multiple PAs on the talk page (and on me inside the article [14]) from various IP addresses, making it hard to keep track of warnings, etc. Not sure what to do about the PAs, but the article could use some help. It needed improvement anyway. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mask of la Roche-Cotard

Hi. I have removed the {{hoax}} tag you put on this article, and added to it a BBC News item which I think is a good enough source - the primary source is evidently an article in "Antiquity", but that's not available on-line without a password. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good, I was just reading through the "antiquity" article to see how definite they actually were. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorsten J. Pattberg

Your PROD was deleted by an IP without any improvements to the article, so I have taken the liberty of bringing this to Afd. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of Articles

Two Articles Mahavira and Parsva were moved to Lord Mahavira and Lord Parsva by a user. This move may not be appropriate. Can you check on this.--Anish (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

no it is not appropriate. These two individuals to the best of my knowledge are not members of the British peerage system. --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

Sorry to keep hasseling you, but your the only administrator I've come across so far. Here goes, in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, the Serbia article should have a shaded or otherwise highlighted area on the map to feature Kosovo. There is no consensus on the Serbian talk pages and the only way forward is to either: seek consensus again or an admin to insert a proper, more neutral map. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. If Kosovo has a map with Serbia shaded, Serbia needs a map with Kosovo shaded. Until this is implemented there is nothing for it but to tag Serbia with {{NPOV}}. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures

Hi -- could you take a look at the discussion? This is an awful article, misleading, confused, etc. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism on nasrani articles

Dear Dbachmann,

A new editor engaging in vandalism has come with the name user:student7 and creating new pages with his own version of personal opinion of Syrian Malabar Nasrani history. The new page created by the vandal is History of the Saint Thomas Christians.

The page he has created is a duplication of a page and information that already exists in wikipedia articles (Saint Thomas Christian tradition and Syrian Malabar Nasrani). BUT he has removed references and passages that he does not agree with. He has created an entire new page only to put his POV on the topic. He uses different I.P. addresses and creates new ids and presents himself as a decent editor while only using anonymous I.P. address to engage in vandalism. He claims in the talk pages that he has created the new page only as a new stand alone page. He says that he has only copied passages from other wikipedia pages. But actually he has inserted a tremendous amount of his own views into the referenced passages and has removed passages that he does not agree with personally.

His true purpose of creating the the page and vandalism is to remove passages with references that refer to Jewish tradition of the Syrian malabar nasrani people of kerala. He is a vandal involved in gross vandalism but masquerading as an editor. I had initially redirected the page to the older page that was edited by several hundreds of editors over several years but he has reverted that. You can read the talk page Talk:History of the Saint Thomas Christians. He has been vandalising pages, especially those concerned with nasrani people for a long time. But no editor seems to bother. This would lead to the destruction of wikipedia. Please help to fight this vandalism. Vagab (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Nationality

Hey, you recently removed the cleanup tag I added to the Swiss (nationality) page. I put it there because there is currently a bunching problem with the page. Since I don't understand how to fix it myself I wished to call it to the attention of more experienced editors who could deal with the problem. Although a fixbunching template has been added, the problem still seems to occur in both the Opera and Firefox webbrowsers when using a resolution of 1280x1024. Is there a better tag I should have used better describe the problem?AlexTG (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

{{cleanup}} should refer to article content and structure, not minor layout issues. It is silly to slap giant warning tags on articles drawing attention to layout problems. If layout is broken, people will see layout is broken, and if they don't notice, no harm is done. The article looks fine on my laptop, at lower resolution. It is even more silly to distract the reader with "layout warnings" when there may or may not be a layout problem for them. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes

Is this stuff encyclopaedic? I'd like to know your opinion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

oh dear. I'm sure there is a lot of valid stuff in there, but it belongs merged to Dacian language and needs to be trimmed for irrelevant material and checked for WP:SYN and WP:OR. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that nobody has voiced any objections to the page since 2006. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, strange. I think I've come across it before but couldn't be bothered to clean it up. It isn't terrible. Well, the formatting is terrible of course, but the content is probably pretty much ok. This could just be converted into a concise list or table of known Thracian words with plausible etymologies. --dab (𒁳) 22:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric art

I'm uncertain what all of the intent of this edit to Prehistoric art was, but you left at least one glaring grammatical error (now suitably adorned by some smartass anon vandal; check the edit history). Can you fix? Magic♪piano 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, sorry. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica

Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo towards the bottom under Place Names. I have had a discussion with EV and I believe my rationale has prevaield. The Article should redirect Kosovska Mitrovica to Mitrovica, as I explained in the talkpage, it is the most common spelling and usage to refer to the city. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica is a disambiguation page. You could arguably ask for a move of Kosovska Mitrovica to Mitrovica, Kosovo, which is pretty much what "Kosovska Mitrovica" means in the first place. I don't think it supports any sort of "pov" to state that this particular Mitrovica is located in Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon clicking on Mitrovica, Kosovo, you reach a page called Kosovska Mitrovica, which is not the most recognizable name for the city. I'm proposing renaming that article, to read just Mitrovica as apposed to Kosovska Mitrovica. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, we can only have one page called "Mitrovica", and that is already a disambiguation page. Please read WP:DAB. If you want to move Kosovska Mitrovica to Mitrovica, Kosovo you should make the proposal on Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica. --dab (𒁳) 07:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, dab. Just thanking you for fixing the Mitrovica cut-and-paste moves and attempting to start a rational discussion at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica (something I delayed doing yesterday for some unrelated reasons). - Best, Ev (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Saint Thomas Christians

I was interested in getting approval to merge the History of the Saint Thomas Christians into the Saint Thomas Christian tradition. I have an idea on how to do that and meet the goals of all parties. I request making the actual move myself! It will be a credible move, however. No switches in text!  :) I wanted to wait until everybody is ready so they won't feel forced to make a lot of changes all at once.

I think it is a pretty good article. Lots of facts. Still needs a lot more. But we will pick up some when the next three or four churches are merged.

I pretty much kept what was there in St. Thomas..tradition. The rough chronology was integrated and some dropped that didn't seem germane to the WP:TOPIC. It was helpful. I found myself deleting a lot of what I had in favor of the new material. Usually I can't really tell the difference since I didn't write either! This is only a history through Koonan Cross. So what is in your history from the later period will remain as is, particularly including the rough chronology.

As I mentioned earlier, I am neutral here, so have little "ownership" issues that various people seem to have.

Do you think that Anthony on Stilts be interested?Student7 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kabul

Take a look at the recent changes and edits like this (removing useful info about the sister cities and the metropolitan population and moving irrelevant stuff to the lead, without a proper justification). I think this page should be semi-protected. Alefbe (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Raptio

I have nominated Raptio, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptio. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers ^T 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi. Please be aware of this request for arbitration: [15] Unfortunately, I had to take it to the arbitration, as any attempts at dispute resolution were unsuccessful. Grandmaster 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a depressing feeling this Youtube video might explain what's been going on some of the Armenian pages [16]. Apparently, any scholars who disagree that Armenia is the homeland of the Indo-Europeans must be part of a Turkish conspiracy. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a case that can usefully be resolved by the arbcom. They'll just tell everyone to be nice. The Moses of Chorene article is being trolled, and Grandmaster is given the full Wikipedia:Experts are scum treatment. This should just be resolved at admin level.

Thanks for the "Turkish conspiracy" youtube link, Folantin :) I agree that there is a direct link to the Ararat arev hilarity we used to have on WP. It seems that Aa has discovered youtube as a more rewarding platform for his activities, and cheers to him for that insight (after less than two years of fruitless trolling). --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica

Dab, will you please change the name of the Kosovska Mitrovica article to Mitrovica. I have explained in the talk page what Wikipedia required for a place name, and I have conducted the tests Wikipedia has outlines as necessery for determining the name for an article. The silence on the part of the other users seems to suggest that Mitrovica should be used as correct name for the article. I don't know how to change it personally, so if you can take the initiative. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained that Mitrovica is a disambiguation page. If you think you have a reasonable consensus for a move to Mitrovica, Kosovo, you should post a request for review at WP:RM. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ev now seems to agree with my point that Mitrovica is more recognizable than Kosovska Mitrovica here: [17] What happens now? Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it. We should give those opposing the move a chance to react, but I think we are pretty close to implementig the move at this point. You need some patience. Progress in content disputes is slow, a matter of weeks, not days or hours. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Hindu_terrorism which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

International Recognition of Kosovo

I would like to show my strong objection of your recent move of the article without discussion or support from the wiki-community. About three months ago, there was a big discussion on the name of the article, consensus resulted in "International recognition of Kosovo". Here is the archived discussion [18] (Ironically it is hard to find the archive now that you have moved the article). In this discussion, the name "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" was rejected. I know that you are an administrator, however that does not give you the right to use your powers against the views and consensus of the wiki-community. If you thought the name of the article should have been changed, you should have done it via WP:RM. Please move the article back to it's former name and gain consensus before you move an article in future and move the article via the policies of WP:RM. Ijanderson (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Been an admin does not give you the right to ignore WP:RM. Ijanderson (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this debate. The move suggested itself to me as a simple matter of accuracy. If you object for some reason (although I fail to understand what reason this may be), feel free to revert me. It is literally beyond me how this move can be considered controversial, but this wouldn't be the first time that wikidrama transcends the limits of my imagination.

I see that the move debate you link concerns the move of "international reaction to the declaration of independence of Kosovo" to "international recognition of Kosovo". That move was a good idea, of course, I have simply made the title yet more accurate, I did not revert to the original title of "international reaction". --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We should keep a wary eye on this admin and even ask for de-admin when he continues to act this way. --Tubesship (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it always heartening to see such explicit failure to assume good faith, and to threaten to de-admin you for such actions, particularly after you yourself have seemingly reverted your own action. Sorry, I didn't check the article myself to verify. Of course, anyone is free to ask the ArbCom to take away the bit from any admin, and, in fact, ArbCom has on occasion. I cannot imagine that they would do anything in this situation, however, except, potentially, admonish people like the editor above for their own actions. Keep up the good work, dab. John Carter (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Tubesship is just a nationalist troll though. He would de-admin anyone and install a stoutly patriotic Albanian admin caste in our place. This would of course be the end of Wikipedia, and the beginning of Albanopedia. This sort of trolling is best met with WP:DENY. If it goes on for too long, the editors in question can also be banned, of course, but most of the time dealing with their sock armies is more trouble than to just let them stick around and ignore them. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I strongly concur with Ijanderson. Whilst I was not involved in the discussion 3 months ago, I can see from your reply that you have acted in honest error. Cheers batobatobato (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I am unable to revert the name chance Ijanderson (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo

dab, the problem is more complex than it seems. There's a whole list of articles and templates pretending that "Kosovo" is short for "Republic of Kosovo" and using RoK insognia as representative, hence prejudicing the whole dispute and ignoring the Serbian enclaves in the region. Only the Kosovo article recognizes this, the rest completely ignore WP:NPOV. I doubt all those guys trying to keep the Kosovo article neutral even noticed this gross infraction of policy. This issue must be raised properly. Whenever I try to fix the problem I get attacked by ten pro-Albanian users and 10 neutral users who don't understand the situation. More users need to be alerted to this problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

how do you mean "more complex"? This is exactly what I was complaining about. The constant Wikipedia-wide implication that "Kosovo"="Republic of Kosovo" (including the rejection of a standalone Republic of Kosovo article even at the cost of the infobox issue) is an obvious attempt at pushing a pro-independence pov. I have nothing against independent Kosovo, in fact I wish the UN would go ahead and pass a resolution already to save us all this hassle, but I cannot accept such blatant violation of WP:NPOV as long as the jury is still out on Kosovo's independence.

I guess this could be a case for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts although I am not sure raising it there will help much. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

When I say "more complex", I mean there's a dozen articles and templates out there that should be addressed all at once.

• All these articles need to be addressed at once, since the issue is essentially the same (though I'd forget about the seperate RoK article if I were you). It makes little sense to go about discussing each article individually, since there's too many of them and it'd probably take a month or more... Therefore: it is necessary to find a proper place to start the all-encompassing discussion.
• It is necessary to notify other users currently engaged in the Kosovo issue, to avoid spamming by the "pro-Albanian side" of the dispute, which appears to be the only one paying attention to these articles. Therefore: a way must be found to notify all involved users.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just got an idea: why not simply post the discussion on Talk:Kosovo?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo is too spammy already. It should be reserved for discussion of the Kosovo article itself. I do suggest we lay this out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Even if we don't get any useful reactions immediately, there'll be at least a central place to discuss this. --dab (𒁳) 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they want to drive me away from Wikipedia?

So, after the latest controversy my enthusiasm for Wikipedia was partly restored. For example, I had borrowed a book Die Runenkunde im Dritten Reich and was about to expand the article religious aspects of Nazism with the material from it. But - then I came into another discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman. I did my best to convey my view of the issue, but I failed completely, and I honestly don't know if this is my fault or that of Wikipedia. I am not so much having a problem with the possibility that I might be wrong; But I am having a problem when I don't even get a chance do bring my arguments forward. If you take a look at the discussion: I think I have pointed out that there is a good chance that this person could be notable. How can someone then close the discussion without this possibility first being refuted. if Wikipedia is governed by consensus (which is something different from a majority wrote), I can not understand why the discussion was closed. If it is a tyranny of some administrators, who are not bound to justify their actions by arguments, well, then I can understand it, but then, again, I could not participate in this project. Actually, the issue left me speechless for a few days. I have now written something at the deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 31 and I would greatly appreciate your opinion. Zara1709 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

you know how this works by now, Zara. Deletion debates sometimes misfire, but getting entrenched over a specific deletion is a bad idea most of the time. There is almost always a way to include the material into an existing article ("mergism"). And believe me, there is no "tyranny of some administrators, who are not bound to justify their actions by arguments". If there is any tyranny, it is the tyranny of the arbcom, since they are really not bound to justify their extremely poor judgement to anyone, but their approach to "tyranny" is mostly indifference and failure to grok what is going on. Sort of a cabal where those pulling the strings are too stoned to look a the strings individually so that they just decide to give the entire bunch a tug evey now and again.

I honestly don't know if Robert I. Sherman should have a bio article, but there is nothing to stop you from referencing him in the various articles discussing atheism in the US. The deleted article consisted of a ToC of "Alleged George H. W.Bush quote on atheists" and "Monique Davis Controversy". You have to admit that this isn't directly biographical material and can probably be discussed with greater relevance elsewhere. If you like I can userify the deleted content for you so that you can look for a new home for it. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still thinking of some concluding remarks for the deletion review. If you really could userefy the deleted content for me, that would be great. I've asked for exactly that at the deletion review, but they don't appear to concede this to me.

But anyway, it has become apparent that I better should not continue to edit Wikipedia the way I used to. Even if can I get myself together after these controversies, each of them is too much distress. My approach until now was to take a look at a problematic article, and see what to to with the material. That sometimes worked (and resulted in the articles Christian debate on persecution and toleration and National Socialism and Occultism) but more often others editors worked against my efforts until I gave up on the article. To me it appears as if there a simply different approaches to what "writing an encyclopaedia" can mean. I would say that this, as an academic task, would require a lot of discussions, because obviously no one could claim that he is aware of all the relevant viewpoints if he refused to listen to other people (this does not apply to the usual vandals and POV-Pushers). Many other editors and administrators seem to follow a different approach. Take a look at this deletion debate: We didn't even look what there is on sources about this 'Robert I. Sherman'. So we don't actually know that he is non-notable, so how come that we closed the discussion already? Surely, everyone but me voted for a deletion, but then, if this was only an issue of votes, what do we have the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) for? And anyway Wikiepdia is not a democracy: "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." If we would go by the "primary method" here, then we would have to exchange arguments pertaining to the notability of Robert I. Sherman before we could speak of a consensus. And several of those other editors were administrators, it shouldn't be necessary to explain this to them. So, how do these people understand what "writing an encyclopaedia" means? I am not sure, but in my opinion there view doesn't allow for a the necessary discussion. If you close a discussion with the argument "consensus" when the essential points weren't even discussed yet, then obviously the majority can decide over the minority without any reasoning. That is why I referred to this style of procedure as tyranny, a tyranny of the majority probably, but still a tyranny.

Now, there were actually two intelligent comments in the deletion review. However, I don't think that I can actually get a discussion about notability started. Btw, of course you are right when you write that the material can probably be accommodated elsewhere. The thing is, however, that I my evaluation of the sources I so far have the impression that Sherman as person is notable. And anyway, I would prefer not to have articles with titles like Discrimination against atheists. Of course, I could actually go ahead with an article Situation of atheists in the United States. There is even one academic source on the topic, so it certainly is better justifiable than an article Discrimination against Neopagans. But I am most likely not going to do this. Such an article would be an easy target for attacks, I am not sure whether I can emotionally survive another 'debate' like this one. Zara1709 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Medes

Thanks, that needed attention. I really need to spend time on some ordinary un-fought over articles like Prehistoric Britain which just need a lot of improvement, but all this other junk gets in the way. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

we get the occasional Brit (or Irishman) on a trip of "ancient Celtick ancestry" but I agree that this is nothing against our ethnic crackpot customers from the wider "second world", apparently a region including anything between the Balkans and Sri Lanka. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Iranid race

Thank you very much for moving the article Irano-Afghan race to Iranid race. That is certainly the more common expression in scientific works. I tried to clean up the article a little bit. I do not think that further information is needed, safe for maybe one or two sentences regarding genetics. Tajik (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am decidedly opposed to linking historical scientific racism to contemporary studies in archaeogenetics unless we cite a source that explicitly links the two. WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please watch this. An anon IP is restoring the POV article on Irano-Afghan. Tajik (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann. Once again, an IP has restored the POV article at Irano-Afghan. I think that a (semi-)protection is needed for the redirect page. Tajik (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Illyria

Hiya dab,

The Albanian editors are still at it in Illyrians and will stop at nothing to have their way. They have now started doing it to other articles as well [19] and are resorting to ridiculous wikilawyer-type arguments [20] to stall the debate. I've outlined my thought in Talk:Illyrians#Sources, but arguing with them is a waste of time. The main problem is that this is an obscure subject and not enough neutral users are aware of it. I've posted on some other wikiproject pages in the hope of getting a meaningful community debate started. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. Regards. --Athenean (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I needed a break from this, but I'll be back. It is true that debating these people is wasted breath. The trick is to find some way to mention their precious ethnicity, but in a way that doesn't sacrifice encyclopedicity. I've tried to do that at Illyrians, but of course dry encyclopedic mention isn't enough for them. They want tall statements of WP:TRUTH, and they want it in the WP:LEAD. Well, they can't have that. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure your clear NPOV in this matter, still no historians for your claims just your POV in this matter. If you have anything to be discussed make it in the relevant talk page. What you are doing right now is imposing your POV in the article (and we are all waiting for your historians:)) as clearly you don't have them (you should have bringed them by now) but only your POV. Aigest (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

what "claim"? It is unclear what you claim I am claiming, beyond my "claim" that the Illyrian articles are being trolled by Albanian patriots. Gods, I would like to see a Wikipedia where people interested in Albanian, Armenian or Iranian nationalism would just edit Albanian nationalism, Armenian nationalism and Iranian nationalism and people interested in (gasp) Illyrians editing Illyrians. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems that you don't remember your claim, I am offering this link [21] wher your claims have been explained and your OR here [22] from scholars to Albanians is very NPOV indeed.Aigest (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

instead of giving me random links to endless circular debates with Albanian patriots, it may be more helpful for you to actually just tell me what it is you want to discuss with me. At the moment you are just giving me what Athenean calls "ridiculous wikilawyer-type arguments to stall the debate" above. Except hat I fail to see any debate that could be stalled. If you object to the characterization of the "descent" stuff in the lead of your diff, that paragraph has been gone for days, and I agree that it should not be restored. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't regret anything except my wasted time here talking to the peoples who don't want to listen. Apparently attack the sources not the author it is not one of your methods used for your contributions in this article. If smth don't fit with your claim that is "ridiculous wikilawyer-type arguments". Excuse me, first if you don't understand the necesity of laws I might gave you one periphrase "They are ment to stop the abuse of power of the authority" does it ring a bell? Secondly they form the enviroment in which we could collaborate here, if you don't follow them, it is not my fault. And third could you PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS FOR YOU EDITS, or this is another "ridiculous wikilawyer-type arguments"? Aigest (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have told Athenean above, I do not expect to make any progress in trying to talk to you. If there is anything you want, raise a specific issue, and try discussing it constructively (you may want to look that one up in a dictionary). If you feel any specific claim in article space is OR or unreferenced, use {{cn}}. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually no progress is made where there are no arguments, such in Athenean and your case. From the begining I am refering the sources and cited them, while and you just make up your unreferenced POV, OR. sentences. No surpise we are in different leves of reasoning, that's why the useless talk.

One more thing COULD YOU PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS FOR YOU EDITS, in Illyrian article? Aigest (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

wow, you are just using copy-paste now, aren't you. I have asked you about four times to identify the "claim" you consider OR, but all you do is repeat "PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS FOR YOU EDITS" back at me (ever reproducing the typo each time). I don't know if you care to not look like a moron, but this does make you look like a moron. Aigest, after five years on Wikipedia I have learned that people like you don't last here. Why don't you put your time to better use and write a patriotic blog somewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That means YOU HAVE NO SOURCES for your edits. Too bad for a five year contributor, no wonder why wiki is not considered reliable. Aigest (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

i am not aware of having made any unsourced edits. If I have, do tag them with {{fact}}, but please keep off my talkpage from now on. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

• "I needed a break from this, but I'll be back. It is true that debating these people is wasted breath. The trick is to find some way to mention their precious ethnicity, but in a way that doesn't sacrifice encyclopedicity"

Your comment is offensive to me and I believe it is verging on racism. I hope you will do the right thing and we can resolve this issue here (as suggested by Wikipedia). I would rather that, than having to take this further. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

it is "verging on racism" to maintain that Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for you to parade around your patriotic sensibilities? Give me a break. You edit Wikipedia, so you are expected to leave your bias at the door. You failed to do that. If you cannot for the life of you forget your petty patriotic bias, you should not edit, it's as simple as that. It is not "racist" for me to not give a damn about your ethincity. If I was a racist, I would be interested in your origins and decide what I think of you based on that. But, to the very contrary, I do not give a damn about your gender, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual preferences as long as you keep them out of my face when you edit Wikipedia. Is that sufficiently clear for you? Read WP:ENC. If you can bring yourself to help building an encyclopedia, you are welcome. If you are just here for your pathetic ethnocentric stunts, you have come to the wrong project. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is time to topic-ban Interestedinfairness from the mainspace of the Kosovo-related articles for a very long time and to revert the article to a stable state, which is even more important because lately it has been nearly impossible to track their indiscriminate deletions of crucial pieces of sourced material. He and another user have already breached 3RR. It is incredible that this has been allowed to happen on an article under probation. While some of his concerns have some merit, he is clearly unable to contribute to the mainspace constructively. I can't consider his edits POV-pushing, as he cannot even push any POV coherently. I don't see any patriotic sensibilities or ethnocentricity there. Only some very personal inarticulate bursts. He is absolutely harmful in the mainspace. Colchicum (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the name Afghan

Hi Dbachmann. Once again, I need your help. A new user is pushing for POV in the respected article. He is selectively quoting unreliable medieval writers and now even uses their collection of legends as a source for his claim that "Afghans are descendants of Egyptian Pharaos". So far, he has been ignoring the talk page. Tajik (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tajik, you want to post such things to WP:FTN. I will see it there, but others will too. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan

Stop deleting this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus111 (talk • contribs)

please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This fellow is currently starring on the 3RR noticeboard. Life is very difficult when you can't log out and use your extra IP sock puppet to help you in your edit-warring. --Folantin (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

this fellow is just a troll. 3RR blocks are too kind on him, since they seem to be implying that he is a Wikipedian in good standing who just reverted once too often. He should just be smacked with a block for adding nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we need an "uninvolved" admin to do that. The new Arbcom party line seems to be: ignorance will save us. --Folantin (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

we don't need the arbcom to block trolls. The arbcom is for reasonable disputes where each party is aware of Wikipedia's goals and editing in good faith. Cases where one party doesn't know what Wikipedia is, or doesn't care to respect the rules should never even be put before the arbcom. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything but the most face-slappingly obvious cases should be put before ArbCom any more, given that Future Perfect and ChrisO's admin rights are currently hanging in the balance in the latest Macedonia RFAR. Anyway, old Cyrus will be absent for the next 24 hours (Irano-Afghan needs converting back to a disambiguation page). --Folantin (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

well, complicated cases shouldn't be put to the arbcom because of their consistent inability to deal with them -- simple cases shouldn't be put before the arbcom because they can be resolved at admin level. It follows that no cases should be put to the arbcom. The arbcom should be routed around on the part of the community. Every time a case does end up with the arbcom, something has gone wrong. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, although it would help if the "community" didn't follow the ArbCom attitude that content problems can be solved by conduct policies. I mean, if we started taking policies on soapboxing, reliability of sources and bias as seriously as "civility" we might actually get somewhere as an encyclopaedia. Well, enough ranting for now (got to save some for after the Macedonia decision). --Folantin (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

well, we are getting somewhere, if not thanks to the arbcom then in spite of it. It is well known that humans have the irritating property of acting stupidly when grouped in large communities, sort of the inverse of ants that are stupid individually but intelligent as a community. Wikipedia being a human enterprise, we'll just have to deal with that. All human communities need individual sanity to counterbalance groupthink stupidity. This applies to Wikipedia, and sanity tends to get the upper hand in the long run, even if it takes some time. The arbcom could be a great asset to short-cut that process, but it seems that individual sanity doesn't survive in committees being put in office by the community. Individual sanity always has to come from selfless and honest nobodies. There is no way you can buy people to act sanely. regards, --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Afghan (name)

Please do not re-add the ending "formed in 18th century". Because look at the bottom here ---- The term "Afghanistan", meaning the "Land of Afghans", was mentioned by the 16th century Mughal Emperor Babur in his memoirs, referring to the territories south of Kabul that were inhabited by Pashtuns (called "Afghans" by Babur). If Afghanistan was formed in 18th century then how did Mughal Emperor Babur mention it in 16th century?------Mullaji (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, this was a mistake. It should have said "16th century". Thanks for the correction. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not a mistake. "Afghanistan" means "Land of Pashtuns", and as such, Babur was only refering to the Pashtun-inhabited territories. The country today known as "Afghanistan" did not bear this name till the 19th century. It was variously known as "Kingdom of Kabul", "Durrani Kingdom", etc. The name "Afghanistan" was established in the Anglo-Afghan treaties, securing the border with India. Because the kings of that kingdom were of Pashtun ethnicity, the nation became internationally known as "Afghanistan" - "Land of the Afghans". Babur's "Afghanistan" had nothing to do with modern "Afghanistan". Tajik (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Babur's "Afghanistan" is refering to a Nation (A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory...) and the country today known as "Afghanistan" is a Sovereign state (A sovereign state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population...).--Mullaji (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

yes. The term s from the 16th century (or earlier), its present meaning dates to the 18th. One does not have "nothing to do" with the other, but the later meaning is rather derived from the earlier. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism

Please see my arguments on the Talk page of Hinduism. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc decipherment claims

You've edited this article, isn't it now just a poor version of Phaistos Disc with added OR on the game board thing? I think it should either go to AfD or become a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

The patriots are at it again, this time removing whole sections [23] that they don't like. --Athenean (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, it is truly sad that you are unable to discuss an issue. I even opened a section in the talkpage of the article where I explained why I removed the section, and then you reverted it back and I stopped there to discuss the issue. Someone else removed the section, clearly agreeing with my arguments. And now I find you, trying to label other editors, in order to achieve your goals. This is truly sad. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian cult/Christian new religious movements

It has come to my attention that you recently moved the article entitled "Christian cult" to Christian new religious movements without discussion, despite having previously initiated such a move request and the fact that the move request you initiated was unsuccessful. Although I myself have no particular preference here, it does appear that User:Milomedes has a legitimate complaint as regards the article's title. Given the lack of evidence of consensus to support such a change (and since there is some evidence to the contrary), I'd like to ask that you revert this move and open a new move discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you'd still like the page to be titled "Christian new religious movements". Thanks for your time. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)