User talk:Dbachmann

generic {{talkheader}}:

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 do not think highly of 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) [2] – 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Archiving?

Hi, umm.. your tpage is huge. ClueBot does great at archiving.. would you mind enabling it? → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

heh, it was just 333k. Let's try and reach 444 next time around :) --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Req.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration Request by Logos5557 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos5557 (talk • contribs)

Appearance (Venetic)

This is from Early Roman Armies (Men-at-Arms) by Nicholas Sekunda and Richard Hook,1995,ISBN-10: 1855325136,Colour plates,The Venetic fighting system,Fifth century BC, Infantry the ones of the right. Can someone make a sketch of them?Megistias (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

early chariots

Hello! I was putting together a small presentation on horseback riding and chariots and found your image on the spread of the chariot, dating the earliest chariots north of the Aral Sea ca. 2000 BC. I'm a bit confused, for the very same article on chariots state that the earliest chariots were found in Sumer, ca. 3000 BC, as I always assumed. Am I getting something wrong?--- Cheers, Louie (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

this is about spoke-wheeled, horse-drawn chariots. The "chariots" of EBA Sumer were essentially carts, with solid disk-wheels and drawn by asses. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So (correct me if I'm wrong), donkey-propelled, not spiked carts are earlier, perhaps sumerian, while spike-wheeled horse-drawn chariots are later, typically indoeuropean. Which actually assumes early trade or communication between indoeuropeans and sumerians at the end of the Early Bronze Age. In other words, the indoeuropeans improved an earlier technology. Right? Louie (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

spokes, not spikes. Well, the wheel itself was probably invented in Sumer or thereabouts, close to 5000 BC. Your donkey-carts are the descendant technology, 2000 years later. During that time, the wheel spread across most of Eurasia, so no, the Indo-Europeans didn't need to get the wheel from the Sumerians directly, they were, by 3000 BC, just using the wheel like everyone else. The spoked wheel was an innovation of about 2000 BC, made, it would appear, not by the "Indo-Europeans" but more specifically by the early Indo-Iranians. This invention literally propelled the Indo-Iranians all over Central Asia and adjacient regions, and it wasn't, of course, long before the powers-that-be in the Near East noticed the technology and wanted to adopt it. --dab (𒁳) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it. Would you be so nice as to point me to some dead-tree reference so that I may increase my acquaintance with this topic of early carts and chariots? Thanks in advance, Louie (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

I don't think it's got a lot to do with nationalist ideology. The whole problem is User:Ottava Rima (remember him from January?) and his problem with me. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

oh man. As if this article didn't have enough problems already. This fellow was bad enough when he tried to argue his core subject of "literature of all types", and I can hardly wait to see what he can do here. As far as I can see he is trying to defend the insalvageable mess left by years of Persian nationalists editing the article to include anything remotely "Persian". Apparently without any indication that he is aware of what he is doing, of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what we've been trying to do is to repace it with either a disambiguation page or a short article explaining the concept "Persian Empire" with links to the relevant articles (Achaemenids, Sassanids etc.) - roughly on the model of the Bulgarian Empire page. What we don't want is a content fork of most of the History of Iran which gives the impression that the "Persian Empire" was some kind of more or less continuous entity since 8th century BC. Which is basically what the protected version does (with plenty of factual inaccuracies thrown in besides). --Folantin (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as an example of Ottava's understanding of this topic, here are some of his statements:"The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." He's also never heard of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Nevertheless, he still sees fit to pronounce that it is "not a reliable source." --Folantin (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

well, it seems he is more or less feeding the Persian Empire article back to you. This is what happens when you believe what you read on Wikipedia :o) Except for confusing AD and BC, and making up stuff about the Ottomans, I suppose. I have no idea. But experience has shown that this user cannot be reasoned with, what with his being far too 'educated' to be asked to bother with puny 'facts'. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly been misled by Wikipedia but I'm not sure we can blame it for him making statements like "[550 BC-640 AD were] pre-Persian Empire empires, not the dynasties that made up the Persian Empire. Please get your terms correct." And: "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?" How indeed. --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sheesh. I think we didn't count our blessings when we were discussing things like Ottava Rima with him, topics on which he at least appeared to have some sort of mental grasp. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. One final gem: "The pre-Islamic Republics were heavily influenced by the language فارسی [i.e. "Farsi", New Persian], which is not 'Iranian'." I'm still trying to figure that one out. (BTW He berated other users for "not knowing Farsi" before finally admitting he couldn't read it himself.) --Folantin (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. I am beginning to appreciate OR as comic relief in the "Persian" wikidrama. Bad editors are bad, but only a few master the art of being so bad they are really great (Dr Boubouleix was such a case). --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember "vandalising" the Battle of Baghdad page by removing 140K of "quality material" supplied by Geir Smith. OR's ideas about Iranian history aren't even the craziest to have appeared on Wikipedia in recent months. You should enjoy the conspiracist contributions of User:ShapurIII, an editor who believes Alexander the Great was in fact an Iranian [3]: "The evidence against continues! The lying storytellers who were illiterate and knew nothing about geography created Alexander in order to inflate the importance of an insignificant and indigent people of Greece. The Alexander historians who were a bunch of illiterate liars who didn't know geography created the myth of Alexander with all those mistakes, not knowing that 2000 years later Anush Ravid would reveal the untruth. They defeated and toppled by their Alexander all the countries and peoples who they had heard of in those days, they told much hype and lies which is easily recognizable and whoever that doesn't understand it is a real fool." (I'm just making a wild guess here - maybe User:ShapurIII and Anush Ravid are somehow connected, hmm?) Bonus rant: [4]. --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, but by now I find the nationalist kids not so interesting. They are too predictable. After a few thousand iterations of "the ancient glories of Armenia/Persia/Bharat/$MY_NATION, cradle of civilization", it becomes boring. What I realy enjoy are the true eccentrics with no obvious agenda, and OR seems to qualify for that category, at least as a junior member. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no agenda, as opposed to a group of people who dominate the fringe noticeboard in order to ensure the pushing of some of the worse POV out there with no respect for verifiability or consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair cop -- Folantin and I have conspired to hush up the 1800 Ottoman conquest of Persia, against all, ahem, verifiability. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch out. He's spotted the "cabal". Editors with a previous interest in Iranian history working on Persian Empire. What are the chances of that happening? --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

you, sir, are a single-topic-editor and an anti-Türkic editor with an agenda of belittling the great Ottoman history of Iran, while at the same time trying to argue for "Persians" before 600 AD, and indeed for 600 BC. This is ridiculous, and against all verifiability or consensus. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, Dbachmann tried to back you up when you went wild at Ariosto. You have worked with him on many, many pages. I even put up the wiki contrib tool to show that. Don't pretend as if it doesn't happen, as you two troll the Fringe noticeboard just to push fringe issues. And Dbachmann, I never said anything about hushing up Ottoman conquest, so way to go. Then you claim as if I called her a single topic editor. Really? I said that she pushes fringe POV everywhere. That is more than just the topic - see how she tried to remove that Orlando Furioso is a Christian Epic even though it was pointed out that hundreds of books on criticism determine it as such. More making stuff up. Is there any possibility for you not to just make up things? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's this mysterious "she" you keep going on about? --Folantin (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

my dear man, perhaps we should to take this delightful conversation to another venue so we will not be constrained by Wikipedia's endearing policies of "CIVIL" or "NPA". I am sure we would all very much express what is on our minds without such restraints. Not that you seem to be too embarassed to give yourself free rein. But really, dear, on Wikipedia, we should discuss content. As you say yourself, "verifiability". So, if you please, why do you not do us a favour and sprinkle your wisdom with some of its sources. No doubt you have excellent authorities for your claims about the "Persian Empire" of 600 to 1800 AD, but the trick would be to share them. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how you have a flagrant disregard for meat puppetry rules, NPOV, OR, V, or most of our other principles that make up Wikipedia, feel free to be incivil here. Oh wait, you already have made it clear. You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages for some unknown reason. Do you think it is fun to do so? Is Wikipedia just some kind of game? Do you do it simply because of people like Folantin are your "friends" so you feel the need to back them up no matter how embarrasingly wrong they are? You have always been a major problem here and there are plenty of people that recognize that. And I already shared plenty of sources, so your game above is just more of your dodging. You treat this as some kind of game, as if it is some kind of joke. Your behavior is disgusting. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shamed. how disgusting, how could I destroy dozens of pages. No, wait. I am not, because I haven't. Because, as in the case of the Ottoman conquest of Persia, you have neglected one little thing: Reality. As in, provide the diff. --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs for what? You make up an argument that has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said, and then demand diffs? There is a term for someone that makes such ridiculous claims as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you come to my talkpage and inform me, I quote, "You have gone around and destroyed dozen of pages". Of course you cannot be expected to provide a diff or two illustrating this scandal. Nor, I suppose, can you be expected to remember the stuff you said more than a hundred minutes ago. Thus, asking for diffs for what you claimed at 20:40 will, at 22:08 not necessarily ring a bell with you, so understandably you will complain that the request "has nothing to do with the topic or anything I've said". Oh dear. And now you're going to be expected to relate to what you said at 22:08. I do sympathize with you, it can be annoying to have people keep assuming you are a genius or something. Relax and do what you do best, is what I say. Maybe go to Folantin's page again and tell him how you feel about him, so he doesn't forget about you. --dab (𒁳) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a lesson in grammar. Your statement above says that I need diffs about the Ottoman Empire. If you want to ask for diffs about you destroying pages, then ask about it. However, all I would have to do is link to your contribution summary. I don't think you've laid off harming Wikipedia for more than a week, if even that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true encyclopedist. I suppose that 'all you have to do' to back up any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh. I would be delighted to sit at your lotus feet and be instructed in the art of English grammar, and I meekly confess that my poor attempts at expressing myself are pathetic in comparison to grammatical gems such as "destroyed dozen of pages" or "diffs about you destroying pages" or "because of people like Folantin are your friends" or "plenty of people that recognize that". Ah, the language of Shakespeare... spoken by so many but mastered by so few ... oh, my boys, my boys... We’re at the end of an age. We live in a land of weather forecasts and breakfasts that set in; shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour. And here we are, we three... perhaps the last island of beauty in the world

Now, which of you is going to be a splendid fellow and go down to the Rolls for the rest of the wine? --dab (𒁳) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"any of your claims is point us to the Library of Congress, eh" and yet here I am - I posted many references on the Persian Empire page which proved both you and Folantin wrong, and then I pointed out how easy it was to see how many times your edits match up, how you two tag team on multiple pages, and how you ignorantly followed her to Ariosto to cause disruptions while ignoring the academic consensus. Oh, but yes, -I- am the one not providing evidence. The thing is, -you- haven't provided evidence or -any- contribution to this encyclopedia that couldn't be seen as destructive. You try to hide by pointing the finger, adding snide comments, and the rest. But really, you haven't defended yourself at all. That just proves that you can't defend yourself, because you know that you are a major disruption. Oh, I love how you try to point out grammar. Oh no, a missed plural. But then your second example isn't even grammatically incorrect, nor is the third, or even the fourth. But I wouldn't expect someone who can't even introduce subjects to their sentences or claim that an object of a thought is found four sentences prior even though multiple new subjects were introduced. Do you care? No, because you are squirming and doing whatever you can to wriggle out of the fact that everyone knows that you are here to destroy the place and don't even have a defense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

if you can make out how 'because of he is your friend' is a grammatical sentence, you are a better man than myself. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you understood the English language you would see a difference between something that is not grammatically proper and a hypercorrection, which is over correct. Adding "of" after because is grammatically necessary but dropped in most instances. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

not quite, but nice try. It has something to do with prepositions and finite verbs, and with the difference between conj. and adv. if you'd like another go. I am sure you can do this, this, unlike Italian or Persian history, is something you studied, remember? --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Prepositions and finite verbs you say? See, that just proves that you don't understand grammar, as you are now misapplying terms. I said "because of he is your friend". "because" isn't part of multiple parts of speech. "of" isn't part of multiple parts of speech. Now, if you would have tried to claim that the difference was in using a pronoun vs using a possessive pronoun, then sure (as "because of his" is seen as acceptable either way). But you didn't. Why? Because you just don't know grammatical rules. Of course, someone whose sentences are "not quite, but nice try" .... well.... it only makes sense. By the way, when using a "because" phrase, it is always followed by some sort of noun or pronoun to be proper. Next time, remember that so you don't look as foolish. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yes dear. Now please take a copy of OED and carefully check entries "A." and "B.". Try to assign your sentence to either A or B. Bonus assignment, check out Chaucer's usage and then write an essay on how Chaucer didn't understand grammar. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you respond to everything but what was said above, you tried to posit Chaucer, who was a poet, wrote in Middle English, and predated many of the grammatical rules, as if he was something that mattered. Wow, you really know how to keep digging. You do know that the center of the earth is rather hot, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets analyze some of the filth, the deception, and some of the pure fabrications in Dbachmann's history. How about this purely disgusting one: "so, it seems no coincidence that Coleridge is both seen as the originator (although according to Folantin he isn't, really) of the terminology "romantic epic" applied to Ariosto as used by Folantin" And yet he only says "romantic". Is the term "romantic epic" used? No. Are the quotes even using the word "epic" in them? But according to you, they are. Funny how you make up a word out of -nothing- in order to fabricate some kind of evidence. Then this wonderful followup - "it was also the 18th to 19th century "Romantics" who made "romance" a term relating to "fantastic/heroic quest literature":" It is just -wonderful- how you thing "romantic" is the same word as "romance". Lets forget that they are used in completely different ways and have completely different connotations! But since you are just making things up, that doesn't matter, right? Then you say "note how Ariosto comes up right at the top in the proper seach for "romantic epic" on google books." And yet Google books doesn't have it. It didn't have such then, nor now. Sure, Spenser comes up, but only as a subtitle and not in legitimately recognized criticism. Does Ariosto? Only in regards to Barbara Reynolds, a lecturer and not a full time professor who created a crappy translation and has since been replaced by three others that are actually correct in their translation. This beauty even makes it clear that Southey was the one to really create "Romantic Epic" as it matches the term. Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian. Well, maybe in your version of reality he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Once more, why are you referring to me as "she"? I'm sure I've told you several times I'm not (most recently here [5]). In the words of a great man: "If you can't even get my gender correct, how can you expect people to think that you have any ability to read or be informed on any topic?" [6]. We've already been through your obsession about there being some deep difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" when applied to Ariosto. You were even invited to change the page to say "romance epic", an invitation you declined for some unknown reason. Plus, I'm not sure I trust the expertise of somebody who describes Malory's Le Morte d'Arthure as a work of "Renaissance prose". --Folantin (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: "Southey doesn't seem like a pre-19th century Italian." No, but Torquato Tasso does. Had you searched a bit further in the volume you were quoting, you would have found this [7]: "[Napoleon] loved Tasso's Romantic epic Jerusalem Delivered (1581)".--Folantin (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"why are you referring to me as "she"?" Because when we first met you had some userbox talking about child rearing of some sort. You've never established your sex one way or the other, and there has been many questions. Hell, even an ArbCom discussion claimed that asking your sex was inappropriate. So, if you are going to play gender neutral or have such absurdities, you cannot cry about it later. Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name. And please, if you want to say that Ariosto and Tasso are the same person, I think you should check yourself into a psychiatric ward because you cannot distinguish between completely separate entities. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it seems your comprehension skills have failed you once again. "Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name." Ottava Rima is a most unusual name. Do you have a sibling called Terza? I've only ever met one person named after a verse form before, Petroc N. Sonnet, who was Professor of Cimmerian Studies at the University of East Truro. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, my email is my professional email and my name has been mentioned quite often here and on sites related to Wikipedia. My real name has been connected to this account since day one, as with my jobs and a lot of my real life information. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um yeah, but I don't have the slightest desire to e-mail you for fear of getting involved in another endless Pythonesque conversation. On-Wiki is bad enough. So your identity remains a mystery to me. --Folantin (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, you need to understand that in Ottava's world, "my identity is publicly known" is just another claim, just like "my English is hypercorrect", or "you are vandalising" or "the Ottomans invaded Persia" or "I have shown you the references" -- she never said that any of her claims were true now, did she. Or if she did, well, that would just be another claim, wouldn't it. In Ottava's magical world, "truth" is a pronoun, and it's the first singular one, too. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just another claim? Do I need to parade in people? Hell, the ArbCom knows my name, most of the WMF, many of the Stewards, and quite a bit of other well known people. Even your pal Moreschi knows my name. I love how you claim that now I call "truth" a pronoun, when the only time it was used was to refer to "he" and "his". Perhaps your above post is an attempt at an insanity plea. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not "need" to do anything. Except perhaps look into a mirror some time. You also do not "need" to prance around about your precious name on this page. People are free to withhold their name. If they want to reveal it, they can put in on their userpage, as I do, and be done. If not, peace to then, but then they perhaps should not pester others about not revealing their names. I think we are done here, and I am calling it a day. Try to find somebody else you can pester for a while. --dab (𒁳) 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "pestering" you mean pointing out that you go around with Folantin and others to push some of the most absurd claims, violate multiple guidelines and policies, and have a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia, then I am sure that just about anyone with an ounce of integrity and a bit of respect for this site pester you. So, why are you still here? Hoping that everyone who cares will just leave because they are tired of people like you not leaving first? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, why are you still here? How about you make good on your constant threats to have me and others banned and expose this foul conspiracy? --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how curious - checking from the history, you two are sure alternating back and forth. An interesting thing, especially when someone claims there isn't a "conspiracy". By the way, conspiracies are secret. Your actions show an audacity so great that you didn't even bother to hide the fact that you actively work in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I have known people in real life who couldn't back down when they were wrong. It's fun to watch on Wikipedia, but in real life, these are personal tragedies. When a simple "oops, you have a point, let me restate that" would put things back on track and even win sympathy, they simply cannot bring themseleves to say it, instead retreating into ever more pathetic constructs built to uphold appearances of "I am right all the time and you are all wrong". This loses them all sympathy, which in turn only reinforces their conviction that they are surrounded by malice. Of course they are also terrible in relationships. At the origin of this phenomenon is a deficient theory of mind. Everyone is a little jerk at the age of four, because hey, you are the center of the universe. Then we are socialized, and come to assume that others are at the center of their univeses, and learn to make allowance for this, expecting them to make the same allowance for us. Then, during teenage we learn, very painfully, that we are really exocentric, and that we can only be whole if we bear ourselves with both self-esteem and humility. But some people do not make this transition, and they take their toddler solipsism into adulthood, very much to their own grief, but also to the significant annoyance of their environment. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have known people in real life" Yes, which is obvious since you know yourself. Briefly looking at your contribs, you are involved in over a dozen POV pushing incidents in which you look absolutely ridiculous - that is just in the last 150 contribs. Take this one, where you feel the need to put Europe between two sets of Asia. Is that alphabetical? No. Does it follow the listing in the previous section? No. Is there any reason for it? No. You are just edit warring because you enjoy disrupting. You do this a lot. It will be a good day when you are banned once and for all. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

be my guest and lecture me on another dozen fields on which you do not have the first clue, Ottava. I am sure Wikipedia will be so much better of if your idea of "knowledge" prevails. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You can claim I lack a clue, but here is the thing - if you were "right", then you would have moved the placement of the previous use of European to match. You didn't. Hell, you don't even have a legitimate reason. They weren't organized according to "time" or to any kind of "percentage". They were simply listed in order and grouped by region. If you honestly think your "ordering" makes sense, then, well, there is a major problem with your ability to process patterns and your ability to have some kind of structural uniformity. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Dinkytown

Although I don't have any strong views one way or the other about the section Dinkytown (talk · contribs) disputes in EGE. I see that they are acting intemperately and not waiting for responses. I am afraid this is behaviour which, if continued, will probably lead to a block. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, this user is misbehaing. But I am staying out of it until I get a chance to rewrite that section. It is true that it had been tagged for too long. It's not as terrible as the tags make out, but it should be improved. Of course, people now waste time edit-warring over the fixed version instead of sitting down and between them carve out an improvement, as in, like, the basic idea of Wikipedia. It is easy to break such a deadlock by investing half an hour of work and fixig the problems with the piece in question. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I did a little research on the section under discussion and put up a few possibly useful sources with relevant quotes on the talk page. If I can help at all with your rewrite, let me know. —Aryaman (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yalens mentioned Mein Kampf on the talk page. Dinkytown has subsquently made a complaint on WP:ANI about Slr and me. You might wish to comment, since I have mentioned you. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I did a rough rewrite of the section under dispute and posted it on the EGE talk page. Of course, it will need work, but it has enough quality references to end the bickering and remove the tags. I'll hold off on changing the article until I hear back from a few other involved editors. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Géza von Neményi

Géza von Neményi currently redirects to Heidnische Gemeinschaft. While he did found this community, he is no longer a member and is more well-known as the self-proclaimed "Allsherjargode" of German heathens and as the current "Hochwart" of the Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft. In lieu of an article on Neményi himself, could we have Géza von Neményi redirect to Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft? Thanks. —Aryaman (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

sounds reasonable, but why don't you do it yourself? Fwiiw, I do not think von Neményi meets WP:BIO, it is already stretching WP:ORG to keep a standalone article on his group. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have done it myself, but I'm simply ignorant when it comes to the 'how' part. Sorry to bother you with this. :/ —Aryaman (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suspition of Sock Puppetry at Wayne Herschel

I am starting to get suspitious that somebody is doing sock puppetry at Wayne Herschel in order to protect the page from possible deletion. A pair of brand new accounts opened up by coming to Mr. Herschel's defense and neither have any other contribs. Both however write with almost precisely the same style. How would I go about looking into this?Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PROD removed from Supervan

I have removed the dated PROD tag from Supervan because the proposed deletion process applies only to articles, not to redirects. Redirects may be discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion. Cnilep (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your well-founded concern with this prod. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This headline suggests that Sarel van der Merwe's fans refer to him as "Supervan". You are, of course, free to Ignore All Rules, but I am once again removing your PROD. Take it to AfD, if you please. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

you are not getting my point. You are coming to my talkpage twice about some technical point of red tape. This time you could have invested in fixing this case. My view is, either contribute to a solution or leave it alone. By "fixing" I mean something like this. You could have done this in one minute, silently, without even notifying me. Instead, you spend that time outing yourself as an adherent of wikibureaucracy who likes to fill talkpages with "conflicts" and "rules" instead of just doing one very simple edit that improves the pedia. Sigh, man. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful edits; they are even better than my own. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

-omics

I don't know what should be done with these suffix articles, but perhaps you do. -omics looks like it might get deleted although the scope of the page seems larger than that of the corresponding page on Wiktionary. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, is there another razzia against suffixes underway? I know these articles need expertise and good judgement, not all of them can be kept. Unfortunately, these are qualities very rare among the editors out to 'clean up Wikipedia' according to the letter of some guideline.

I emphatically insist that all articles deserve to be considered on their own merits. Any approach of "transwiki all suffix articles" is a non-starter. Anyone wishing to transwiki suffix articles will need to seek for informed consensus for each article individually. Now in the case of the -omics article this may or may not be arguable, we'll need to look into it. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and Modern people

If it is nationalism, why is Chinese history from 3rd millennium BC? Hopefully I get a good answer from you dab, because I heard from you that no "modern people" exist from half of 2nd millennium BC, or even earlier, which is the case in Chinese. I think that is nationalism too for sure about Chinese (modern people still today) 5000 year history. Soukrot (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont you think Chinese history is a little far being 5000 years as Wikipedia says, and just about any Encyclopedia I open I see that? I thought you were the main "nationalism" handler here? Soukrot (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me about Chinese history? Neither you nor I have edited any China-related articles recently. Please use WP:RD if you have any questions about China. Fwiiw, our "history of $COUNTRY" articles usually do include a section on prehistory. Also, please tell me you're not from Richmond, TX. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Im mentioning this because you are the one that is against "nationalism", and you have mentioned sometime in like a Mitanni page, where "no modern people existed from that time", yet we have Chinese history, "1000" years before that 2nd millennium BC, as a "modern people still living and breathing in this time", can i make myself more clear? I think you know exactly what Im talking about here. Chinese history is the "CORE" of that Nationalism you keep ranting and raving about. Wake up to this news hah. Soukrot (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And no Im not frim TX, but do I need to tell you where Im from? Soukrot (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

why do you insist on picking my talkpage to rant about the Chinese history article? Go to Talk:History of China. In fact please edit any article except for topics of interest to Armenian nationalists, because you seem to have a WP:COI in that field. It isn't inconceivable that when I have time and when I'm in the mood, I might go and contribute to that article, but I will not do so at the moment, so it is futile for you to complain to me about this article. Happy editing. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont you take this seriously. If you did? You would have committed a while ago of correcting the Chinese history stretching to 5000 years hah. Sometime "so funny" to my and others opinion.

You are the "nationalism" handler guy or something close that name. I think I was pretty clear of mentioned modern Chinese people's history 5000 years. If you agree with that, I think we need to consider of other peoples history as well, since there is evidences of those other modern peoples as well, like in the case of Armenians or Assyrians which you also edit those modern peoples pages. Soukrot (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

bye now! --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mm. Which ancient-history loving sockpuppeteer is this again? There are so many, I've lost track. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a sock of one of the Armenian kids. It's futile to keep track of how many of them we have, since they communicate via fora anyway, so they are basically a single editor, and a disruptive one at that. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer: [8] Soukrot is a sock of the banned user Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 05:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with it. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Grandmaster 09:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please check the recent edits of Ararat arev socks to Mount Ararat? I'm not sure that they helped improve the article. Grandmaster 10:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Title Namimg

I noticed you mentioned the naming of Mitrovica on the talk page, could you please give your opinion at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica#Mitrovica? Regards IJA (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I already have. It remains the same. Why should I reiterate my position every two months? --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...because I've brought to light new arguments IJA (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of L/L Reasearch

The article L/L Reasearch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unlikely typo

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 07:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

sure. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottie

ANI

[9] Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

as I say, wikidrama. Why don't you find some topic about which you have some idea, and try to work on the article about that. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, in case you wondered. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that since this started on August 21, I have had one DYK go through, 9 nominated, 9 more being prepped for DYK, an FA pass along with 3 others being listed at FAC, and multiple GAs being reviewed. What have -you- done these past ten days? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, ze Wikicup. While you were playing social games, it would appear that I have focussed on building an encyclopedia. Seriously? This isn't a pissing contest. Go back to writing articles about stuff you know, respecting evidence challenging your edits when it is shown to you, and I don't have an issue with you. Otoh, continue playing the prick for the sake of it and I will keep denouncing you for it. The concept is also known as karma, or in your case, works. You do not have to take my word on this, as I expect you won't. It is rather kind of a social natural law, its existence independent of whether I or anyone else tells you about it. Keep up your pettiness and insincerity, and it will always come back to haunt you. Show good grace and integrity, and it will also always come back to gratify you. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Social games? I have actually built far more of this encyclopedia since January than you have your whole career here. The only one "playing" anything is you, and it is tiring and boring. Ever notice why you have so few allies in this one? Because most people really know that you have gone so out of bounds on this that no one is willing to stick up for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have actually built far more of this encyclopedia since January than you have your whole career here." Oh dear.--Folantin (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that I have had over 130 DYK, over 20 GA, and over 5 FA since that time period, right? And my barnstar collection is far higher in a much shorter time. Half of these are from me. Funny how that works out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ever notice why you have so few allies in this one?" "And my barnstar collection is far higher in a much shorter time." In other words, my cabal is bigger than your cabal. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a cabal. You have four or five people that loosely help each other out of some mistaken idea that you are right. You have POV pushed on hundreds of articles and caused endless edit war. Do I have a cabal? No, I just happen to have put in major article writing with many, many arbitrators, bureaucrats, admin, and other high profile users. See, my content work here has been high profile and quality. Your article work here has been petty and based on fighting with people. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"No, I just happen to have put in major article writing with many, many arbitrators, bureaucrats, admin, and other high profile users." In other words, "I've done a hell of a lot of schmoozing which should give me carte blanche to behave however I like on Wikipedia." And so modest too. --Folantin (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Schmoozing? No, I wouldn't call any of it schmoozing. Its called actually writing content and putting in word. Perhaps you should try it instead of constantly attacking people and waging war. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't its content labelling system. The hard part is keeping trouble spots clean of bad faith users with an agenda, as I have been doing with you. DYK is a nice gimmick, but spamming DYK is hardly an encyclopedic achievement. The real work is done where trolls try to break articles with phony claims and epic bursts of wikilawyering. Your edit history is by now full of precisely such actions. It will be very easy to compile a large collection of incredibly dumb, incredibly wrong, and incredibly vicious edits of yours. But to do that, somebody wouuld need to be sufficiently interested in your antics to spend more time with it than necessary. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia never forgets, and while you may be used to claiming one thing and then another, on Wikipedia such tactics come back to haunt you. I would actually respect you for your work on English poems, if you did not pretend that the decent job you do there makes you some kind of super-Wikipedian and took it as an excuse to be a complete and utter WP:DICK all over the project.

sheesh, Ottava, so you have lost face. Try to deal with it, and try to learn from it, and perhaps next time it becomes clear you have no case whatsoever you will remember to back down before it's too late. You may also try to remember that you are a sinner, if that's what does it for you, just try to keep your cycle of sinning and repenting from disrupting Wikipedia next time. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say I lost face when the only people agreeing with you are the same people who agreed with you before, whereas every day more people come and reinforce what I have said. Furthermore, Characters of Shakespear's Plays went to DYK at 40k. Spam? No. The Conversation poems pages all went to DYK - (Dejection: An Ode, Fears in Solitude, Frost at Midnight, Reflections on Having Left a Place of Retirement, The Eolian Harp, The Nightingale: A Conversation Poem, This Lime-Tree Bower My Prison, To William Wordsworth). All highly sourced and all in decent shape. Spam? No. Samuel Coleridge's early life went to DYK with little changes from that state. Spam? No. And poetry articles? No, I work on religion articles, law articles, history articles, and the rest also. I also am heavily involved in copyright and plagiarism concerns, and spend a lot of time correcting sourcing issues at FAC of -all- types of pages. You can claim what you want about me, but no one but your tiny group would ever bother to claim it is true. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenians

We can have photos of historical Armenian figures. It's not your place to say we can't. Show me where in the Wikipedia guidelines it says otherwise. Serouj (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please protect the Armenians article from non-registered users. They keep on changing the population numbers. Thanks. Serouj (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you think that the first national church shouldn't be included in the Christianity page. I don't believe it to be a claim when it is cited in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History – Page 268 by Cambridge University Press, Gale Group, C.W. Dugmore? Thanks! Nareg510 (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner

Dab, not sure if you are still monitoring the situation with Torchrunner (talk · contribs). He recently made a new edit to the Lorber article with a really inappropriate reference. I reverted and made some comments on his user talk page. However, it now seems to me that my comments are just repeating what has been said over and over again, especially by you. Any suggestions? Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

A user has been leaving me messages (User talk:Rjanag#About new accounts) asking me to "autoconfirm" him so he can edit war on some pages that you semi-protected. Just thought I should give you an FYI about this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of autostereotypes by nation

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of autostereotypes by nation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-10

Removal of PROD from Bothati

Hello Dbachmann, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bothati has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(add sources and contest prod - easily substantiated with a Google Books search)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Aryan

• 12:33, 20 February 2008 Dbachmann protected Aryan (assorted sock attacks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I've started a review on the talk page of that article to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. See talk:Aryan. --TS 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lebor Feasa Runda

In case you aren't watching Talk:Druid... You wrote, «I don't know what translation software would come up with beträchtlich ("considerable") for vast...». WorldLingo does, for one. It translates the entire sentence fragment exactly as shown with all the errors, word-for-word. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting. The vast=beträchtlich must be a simple error in their dictionary. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as "1X2Willows" pointed out on alt.religion.druid, it's a matter of context: for "won a vast amount of money", beträchtlich would work; just not for "a vast emptiness". Computer translations are notoriously insensitive to context, so they make the same sort of errors a human might make translating only word-by-word from a dictionary, paying no attention to shades of meaning in either language. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

that's not exactly true, unless you want to tune your translation to account for an Anglo-Saxon tendency for exaggeration. The translation would work, but it isn't exact. "Eine beträchtliche Summe" would be "a considerable amount of money", not "a vast amount". But I assume you are right that the database entry for "vast" probably originates in such fiscal contexts. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Akins's story has changed, to assert that he posted a computer translation from English to German in order to keep the original German text confidential! (My reply notes that's not what he'd claimed.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And now he claims the text was "revealed by the gods"! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that we have reduced this author to a blubbering heap. The power of freely available encyclopedic information. In the 1980s, or even in the 1990s among the pathologically credulous, he could have pulled this off for years. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

James Frankcom (talk · contribs)

is a problem. See my comments here [10] and here [11]. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I am willing to take this. I am getting a bit tired of the "Near Eastern" (Balkans/Armenian/Persian/Hindu) brand of nationalism, and it may be well to remember that this kind of attitude isn't quite extinct in Western Europe, too. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding coordinates to articles on Wikipedia, but please note that the Coor * family of templates are deprecated; use {{Coord}} instead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I keep forgetting the syntax. I sort of expect the bots to clean up after me. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protoarmenian culture

You had written: "the Turkish authorities spare neither strength nor resources to clear off any track of ancient proto Armenian culture..." Hi, can you list here the facts of this clearing off? It is very interesting! I need these facts for my research. Thanks in advance for your kind assistance! --Zara-arush (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have written this where? --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

221.132.118.5 (talk · contribs)

It insists on adding disproportional content (inappropriately taken from Islam in Iran) to History of Iran. It's better to semi-protect the page for while. Alefbe (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy is just copying and pasting a slew of material from Islam in Iran. He keeps re-adding it. The guy needs blocking. He's already violated 3RR. If he makes one more revert I'll report him to the noticeboard. --Folantin (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pakistani IP 221.132.118.5 (talk · contribs) who keeps messing with the History of Iran article really needs stopping now. He's just readded the same incompetent copy-and-paste material for the umpteenth time. --Folantin (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Rigvedic geography.jpg

The map of Rigvedic geography mis-spells 'Cemetery H' in RED! Please correct this.98.248.117.239 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out. --dab (𒁳) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ararat Arev Redux

You might be interested in this [12]. The "long term abuser" who has just been unbanned is apparently yet another sock of Ararat Arev. [13]. The unblocker is User:Fred Bauder. --Folantin (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Fred Bauder has posted his off-wiki conversation with "Nareg" on his talk page [14]. I thought I'd let you have first say about this since you've had the most dealings with AA. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated update: Future Perfect has just reblocked this latest incarnation of the Sun of Ararat. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just having another futile "debate" with an Armenian nationalist, Andranikpasha (talk · contribs). Am I wasting time over yet another Aa sock or is this one genuine? It is getting hard to tell. From the point of view of WP:DUCK, these accounts are all the same, but then of course Aa isn't the only Armenian nationalist crackpot on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a while since I've looked at Armenian stuff in much detail. Due to time limitations I'm almost entirely focussed on Iranian articles at the moment (and you know how that panned out without the input of a single ultra-nationalist POV-pusher!). But IIRC Andranikpasha is a completely different user from AA. AA's latest incarnations have been obsessed with Mount Ararat (as ever) and existentialist philosophy (Sartre, Heidegger). A pretty unusual combination of interests.--Folantin (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

it is true, Andranikpasha is several levels above what Aa is capable of doing (basically shouting "ancient sources, Ararat cradle of civilization" over and over again). Andranikpasha appears to have the erudition of presenting a google books link and ask me to see what "the academic people are saying". Which, while several levels above Aa, I am afraid is still several levels below what would be required of a constructive or useful contribution. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to search my memory more to see if I've ever come across this guy. Shame Moreschi isn't around any more - he knew pretty much all the Armenian and Azeri editors. I see the dispute is over Hayasa-Azzi. I really hate having to deal with that area of history (plus Urartu etc.) on Wikipedia because it's too damn vague it attracts all kinds of speculation, plausible or otherwise.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Check your email

I could use your advice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on recreating “Race and crime”.

I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for playing by the rules. My position remains that this is potentially an article we can carry, especially under WP:NOTCENSORED (if we do not tolerate religious hysteria at Muhammad, we will also not tolerate racial or PC hysteria at "Race and X" articles), but that a serious effort needs to be made by those working on it to address all reasonable objections, especcially regarding WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. As the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime was "keep and cleanup" I do not see how anyone has any business indef-protecting the redirect, and I will take it upon myself to unprotect as soon as I see a satisfactory attempt at cleaned up recreation.

now, your best bet will be to begin by creating a "Race and crime" section at Anthropological criminology, summarizing the gist of your sources, and then split off a WP:SS article from there. --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the race/crime statistics have been added to the anthropological criminology article in the past, and were removed on the grounds that they aren’t relevant to it. (I actually brought up this idea myself on the Anthropological criminology discussion page in July, without realizing that it had been tried before.) I kind of agree with this decision, since anthropological criminology is based mostly on phrenology and has very little to do with race, although it makes me wonder why race and crime was merged into that article in the first place.

What RegentsPark suggested is that if I want this article recreated, I should create a draft for it in my userspace, and work there on both cleaning it up and building consensus to recreate it. That’s what I’ve been working on, but the cleanup process has been difficult because nobody other than me seems to care about this. Thus far I’ve contacted ten different users who’ve been involved in this article, but as you can see from the draft’s discussion page, the only people who have responded haven’t been willing to offer any help.

If you agree that Race and crime is an article that can be added back to Wikipedia, but that it ought to be cleaned up first, I would appreciate your help with improving it to the point where it can be recreated. I’ve been working on this for upwards of two months, and I’m nearing the limit of what I think it’s possible to do on my own. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

well, if I'm going to unprotect the page, I shouldn't be involved in writing the article, should I. And even apart from that point, I would not care to invest much time into collecting data on this, because frankly I am convinced that the result will be US-centric as no other country will likely have "race and crime" statistics. There is nothing wrong with this, but of course it will be made clear when we are not discussing "race" in general but specifically "race in the US".

I think RegentsPark is out there on a limb here, as it isn't at all usual to "protect until cleaned up". I don't want to wheel-war over this, but I will let him know how I see this and on what conditions I plan to invervene.

It is good to have a workpage on this, but I do not think we need to clean up the entire statistics thing before recreating the article. We can also recreate the article as a well-referenced stub just giving a rough outline of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The new article you've created is starting to have an issue that its previous version did. I've described this in more detail on the draft's discussion page. I think this problem needs your attention, because this is something that's been going on for more than a year, and it isn't likely to stop without the involvement of one of the admins. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. I don't rightly know why, but I somehow let myself get involved in this article. I spent some time researching and writing, trying to build up the article, but I seem to be the only one interested in actually reading and working on the thing. As it stands, it's been proposed to a) blank it, b) stub it, c) merge it. I'm starting to feel a bit like Josef K. Any chance you could drop by and voice your opinion? Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as it was necessary to admit that the article had severe problem as it stood at the time of the AfD, people will now have to admit it is well sourced and about a bona fide topic. No PC whining on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, dab. Race and crime in the United States has been (re-?)listed at FTN. I have neither your stamina nor your experience in dealing with this kind of thing, so I'll be bowing out soon enough. I did what I could to build the article in a fair manner, but I can see where this is headed and I'm beating myself over the head with a medium-sized trout for even getting involved to begin with. :) Hopefully the next time we meet, it will be in a far less befogged landscape. Cheers, —Aryaman (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dab. If you have some time, could you take a look at Race and crime in the United States? I've put quite a bit of work into it. Actually, perhaps too much. I'm starting to get tunnel vision, and I'm having a hard time keeping things in perspective as this is pretty much all I've done on WP for the last week or so. What it needs is a very healthy dose of constructive criticism (I emphasize "constructive", as I've already had my fill of the ordinary kind) from a competent editor with a good sense of balance as far as the encyclopedia goes. You're the best one I know in that department, so I'm asking you. Don't hesitate to make changes to the article, either. I've ended up "owning" this article by default - something I would very much like to see change in the near future. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

World language

Hi, I believe you are the creator of this wiki article. Someone has challenged the contents and arguments put out on this article, and also put up a notice asking for more sources. He or she also objects to the notion that Russian and Chinese are to be rightfully considered de facto world languages, although we have agreed that Hindi + Urdu may qualify under the category of "other supra-regional languages". Would you like to come in and address this issue, or add more sources to the article? Haleth (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the article's referencing leaves something to be desired. But of course you can also make a point of plastering an article with warning tags just because you don't like what it is saying. We should be pragmatic, compare de:Weltsprache and weltalmanach.de (published Fischer Verlag). Perhaps Weltsprache is a German term in origin, and "world language" is only an English calque. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't read German unfortunately, so I don't know what it says. I have however, found two books written by people that deals specifically on the subject: world languages. Exactly the same 9 languages were named in both sources: English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, German, Portuguese, and Dutch. From my perspective on the conversation taking place on our respective talk pages, I think this person is approaching the topic with some factually incorrect perceptions, is dead set in his or her opinion about some of the languages and may not budge even if I add in proper citations.

You should properly put in a more complete citation of where you got the characteristics of living world languages from, because that person is actually using some of these listed characteristics to dispute the contents of the article. Haleth (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

since we are rather despeate for good sources here, how about you identify the two books you mention? --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Haleth. WP:AGF. In a hope to restore my defamed reputation, in our discussions I changed my opinion on Russian speakers not being ethnically diverse. I don't think you have changed your opinions, but I wouldn't conclude that you aren't open to doing so. I have explicitly stated numerous times that both my opinion and your opinion are meaningless - all that matters is sourced info.Utopial (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving the project

Hi. I've just come here to tell you that in the past (and hopefully in the future) I have always regarded you as an editor who is attempting to improve and protect the project. I would be hopeful and grateful that you assumed the same about my actions, and didn't subscribe to theories about nefarious motives or ownership issues on my part. I can assure you I have the goals of the project at heart, and though we may disagree I hope we can keep this on a personable rather than personal level, based on reasoned argument, discussion, and consensus forming. Discussion in this area has become rather heated, and I hope to avoid he subject for a short while. I hope that the adversarial tone can be dropped and that consensus can be found. The new article is a huge improvement over the old, but the inclusion of the table without contextualising information and other fringe theories still leave problems that need to be dealt with. And they are being dealt with, but we shouldn't dismiss these concerns outright. Verbal chat

thank you for this constructive note. Yes, do let us work together in improving the article.

However, I still cannot see how you can claim that the table in question is presented out of context. The article structure is as follows:

• lead: race and crime in the US surrounds confliction interpretations of the statistically high crime rate among African Americnas.
• Statistics: here are the actual statistics
• Analyses: here are the scholarly analyses of these statistics

I am honestly at a loss how it is at all possible to claim that the statistics are presented without context, when the context of the scholarly debate is explicitly discussed both before and after the table is presented. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs)

I am not interested. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel rather guilty about this, OR should have been banned long ago. Now he's still causing trouble. Ah, well.

Anyway, how's tricks? What fun have I missed in the last few months? Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

Helle Dbachmann, I would like to start a French translation of this article. Since it is protected, I leave it up to you to add fr:Origine africaine de l'homme moderne, the title I suggest, Humboldt 09:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ásatrú

You nominated Category:Ásatrú for merging but used an incorrect template. I have corrected this and started a discussion here. Your input would be useful. Tassedethe (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[15] Grandmaster 16:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bharat_(disambiguation)

Can you review the formatting and content of this page ? I just changed it from a redirect to Bharata and moved Bharata to Bharata (term). Abecedare (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the (current) article Bharata (term) (which previously resided at Bharata) is essentially a cut-and-paste of Greater India and was created by an IP at this edit in June, 2009. I don't seem to have helped clean the mess by moving the article, and creating the disambiguation page; instead I should have juste reverted to this May 2009 version of that page. Anyway, should we delete Bharata (term) now, or redirect it to Bharata (disambiguation) ? (The contribution histories of these articles are all over the map). Abecedare (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Bharata (term) should be a section-redirect to Names of India#Bharata. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Frankly, the redirect target doesn't really matter for this unlikely search term (once the incoming links are fixed). Just want to make sure that the content fork does not remain in place. The only resaon to retain anything of this is GFDL compliance. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something pretty obvious. Why isn't Bharat listed on the dab page? Should there be an 'other uses' tag on the Bharat page? Which reminds me, having bought some recently I must use it! Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bharat is a redirect to India. This used to be listed at the bottom of the disambiguation page, because it is a derived meaning (sacrificial fire - Agni - descendant of Agni - tribe - legendary emperor - his empire - term for the greater "motherland" in the independence movement - name for the 1947 Republic), but because it is clearly the "primary" meaning today, I have moved it to the top of the disambiguation page. I think it was Gandhi's idea that the territory of British India should be considered a single indivisible "motherland". Unfortunately, this had no basis in history, because before the British, India had always been divided into a number of kingdoms (excepting a number of empires of limited duration, which included most of India, such as the Maurya Empire -- which was of course just as imperialist a construct as British India) But the Puranas had Bharata, a legendary emperor of the entire [known] world, and the known world in the Puranic period happened to pretty much correspond to the territory of British India, so the name Bharat really imposed itself as a "native" term for the territory under colonial rule. Of course, history didn't take Gandhi's route, and British India was partitioned, to the tune of half a million or so lives lost in what we would today call "ethnic cleansing", but the Republic of India was still named "Bharat". Strictly speaking, this name implies irredentism, claiming Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of the Republic of India, but I do not think this is commonly intended. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I may have confused you because as an aside I was thinking of some Baharat I'd bought but didn't put the name after "bought some". Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

British India

Hi Dab, It's best not to tamper with British India. It took many months of acrimonious debate on its talk page, as well as on some others, before we came to that resolution (i.e. of a locked-down redirect). The point is that British India was the (somewhat informal) collective name for the provinces and presidencies of the British governed regions (both during company rule and during the raj). Directing it to a dab page, will create the same confusion that resulted earlier in various people starting their own British India pages. Someone clicking on British India should be taken straight to its proper definition, i.e. the collective name for the British administered regions, and be instantly disabused of the family lore they might have grown up with. They can then, if they so choose, go to the company rule or raj pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why everything remotely related to India must be the subject of "acrimonious debate". I realize the term is ambiguous, which is why it should redirect to a disambiguation page. This can be established in two minutes and without any acrimonity whatsoever. I can revert my edit to a protected redirect, but I argue that a disambiguation page creates less confusion. I expected British India to redirect to British Raj and was confused when I ended up at some obscure list of provinces. That confusion could have been avoided if the redirect instead just pointed to a clean disambiguatino page. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:) Yeah, I'm with you on the acrimony bit! I have my theories, but I won't unburden here. And, yes, it used to be directed to British Raj (which really was incorrect), but then a few people (who I think later turned out to be a really precious few), undid the redirect and began to edit it for their purposes. Resolution of that took from August 2008 to January or February 2009, when those editor(s) were banned. Maybe we should wait to hear from user:Philip Baird Shearer and user:RegentsPark, the two admins who were involved in that debate. user:Nichalp was too, but he has since retired. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never understood Wikipedia's patience with single disruptive users. Sure, there is the fear of a cabal which might conceivably define "disruptive" according to some nefarious agenda, but as long as there remain a significant number of sane and educated users (unfortunately two categories with little or no causal relation), we should trust them to give a fair hearing to trolls, and once the trolls have exhausted their chance to make an actual point, show them the door. This can take a week or two, but never six months. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you on that too. (Thanks, Dab, btw, for the revert.) Here, for your reading pleasure, is Pre-history of British India—a Foundling—with apologies to Henry Fielding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Redirect to British India (disambiguation). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

RP, this is resolved now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd leave British India redirecting to Presidencies and provinces of British India as I think that was the agreed outcome last time around. But I'm not fixed on that one. Whatever British India redirects to though it should stay protected, until there is a consensus to unprotected on the talk page of where ever it redirects.

Also Dbachmann I see you have suggested that British Empire in India be redirected to British India (disambiguation). I am not convinced that that is the best solution I would be more tempted to go back to revision as of 10 November 2007 -- a redirect it to British Raj -- and adjust the hat-note at the to of British Raj to point to British India (disambiguation). Anyone else have any thoughts on this. -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need a "British Empire in India" page at all, as it is a rather unlikely search string, so your solution is fine too. PBS, I appreciate your conscientious approach, but you are giving far too much weight or credibility to the stale wikidrama and trolling behind this "case". This is something that a few good editors and a dose of WP:UCS can resolve in a few minutes. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With regards to "British India". It is not just because of the last tiff, (and my experience is that assuming good faith binds hands, and these things take a long time to resolve, as any other administrator unfamiliar with the case assumes it is a content dispute -- There is one such dispute at History wars to quote the party "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks."), because periodically a requested move from "British Raj" to "British India" comes up and there have been cut and past moves/creations by others as well as that by the now banned party (the history of the redirect "British Indian Empire" contains one such creation). -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Block me again!

Another week please. I think I'm getting off it. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

well, do something evil then. call me names or vandalise my user page or something :oP --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

World language source list

Sources gathered and compiled: Talk:World_language#Sources Utopial (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanians editing

Though I think you are currently doing a good job on your edit. There is a certain sentence that I noticed that seems to be POV. The only thing that changed in that matter is that before NATO intervention in 1999, there were information services and news ("Dnevnik") broadcaster in Albanian language on the Serbian National Radio and Television, RTS. In 1991 Milosevic changed the constitution of Kosovo, and as a result Albanians did not have a right for high or university education, no television on their language - only 1 hour on national television, were massively thrown out of their jobs. This can be heavily references if you require. Thanks again! —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Albanians article is in an appalling state. I have mostly only met with the topic on Wikipedia when the patriotic kids came to cause trouble Illyrians and related articles on antiquity, but I decided to give it a quick cleanup. I cannot fix the entire article, but you are very welcome to help. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that, thanx! —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi dab, while you're at it, the article on Albania is in equally parlous shape, particularly the History section. The "Prehistory subsection" is a clutter of unrelated archeological discoveries that aren't even prehistoric, while any attempts by non-Albanians to copyedit the article are met with comments such as these [16]. The Demographics section isn't much better, with the Religion subsection in especially bad shape. It is rambling, poorly sourced and organized, going from 1912 to 1950, then to antiquity, and then back again. Not to mention it contains nonsense to the effect of Christianity had to compete with Illyrian paganism until the Middle Ages. I brought it up on the talkpage, but I might as well be arguing with a brick wall. Do you think you can do a quick cleanup/copyedit at that article as well when you get a chance? Best, --Athenean (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

wow. The time our Albanian patriots spend quibbling over the Illyrians, you'd think there was nothing left to do at Albanians or Albania, but as usual, the actual work is left to the encyclopedists, the patriots are just here for the WP:SOAPBOXing. --dab (𒁳) 08:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you also get involved and maybe warn some patriots here too. This article is totally WP:OR and has allot of WP:V. I asked for a Third Opinion: he gave them some advice - nothing. I complained on WP:OR noticeboard, they said it is totally OR: read here. But the page is so absurd, and I think you can do something about it. (You seem to be a nationalist exterminator :)). —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

read my response.How many more admins are you going to spam? Anna,please try to keep the cases to their pages.The No_original_research/Noticeboard shows that you are the one who is wrong, not i.I would have found it more courtial if you informed me of the OR and if you did not try to do things like this Moreshi talk,PeterSymonds talkMegistias (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Adamic language

Please protect the page from anonymous editions because it is target of trolling by banned user:Wikinger. He constantly adds his theories about PIE as Adamic [17] --Aminullah (from IP because I forgot my password)

Disruptive editing

Hello Dab. You know me from the ongoing Kosovo discussions, so far we haven't had any major disagreements between ourselves. The reason I am writing to you is because I know you are also an admin here and if possible, would you intervene (as neutrally as you can) on an issue where I am personally involved. This is not Kosovo-related so you are free to act accordingly, even if that means blocking me personally. Over the past few days, I have had a presentation dispute over former world statespersons with a user who calls himself "User:Zsero". This user has held me to my word on a recent comment I made that living subjects need to have their opening lines containing "is" rather than "was"; I realise that this may not be an actual MOS guideline but I have felt it to be an improvement, and I can site hundreds of articles across WP which have the version I have been trying to use. If you follow the latest discussion on User talk:Zero, you'll see how it has been. If you look at my last edits to this point (each of which reverts an edit by that user), you'll see how this person has been behaving; if it is not provocative then I do not know what it is. All I know about him from his past is that he does not respond warmly to users who disagree with him, and he has been blocked for edit warring as I am sure he will do unless someone steps in. For my part, I have made it clear that I intend to revert him every time and that - as you know - leads to edit wars where I too am a target for blocking. But you see, my only alternative is to allow that halfhead to assert his opinions freely whilst I sit back and accept it. There is no policy to support his or my version; and it is not a major discussion point among other editors. I only know that nobody switches "is a former president" to "was president" whilst the subject is alive, whilst the opposite occurs frequently. No discussion follows. Why? Because nobody has hitherto challenged it, but now we have a user who does. Would you be so kind as to carry out some form of discipline in either direction? Evlekis (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I also point out that this particular zealous edit[18] even goes as far as to remove factual information (ie. the 1996 election battle between Rawlings and Kufuor). Evlekis (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis started out with the claim that "This is one of the official standards here"; on being challenged he could not point to that standard, and it really is not good enough for him now to say that "this may not be an actual MOS guideline but I have felt it to be an improvement". Instead of acknowledging his error, he supplied me with a list of articles he had changed on the basis of this supposed standard, and explicitly challenged me to revert them; he can hardly complain when I took him up on that challenge, reviewed each change on the list, found the lede of each of those articles in need of tightening, and did so. Instead of justifying his preferred version, now that the "standard" he had relied on proved not to exist, he petulantly declared war, and reverted all of my changes, offering no reason at all.

Further, while I have restricted my comments to his actual edits and positions, he has referred to me as a "trol" [19] [20] [21] [22], a "halfhead" [23] with a "tiny excuse for a brain" [24], falsely accused me of vandalism [25] [26], and admonished me to "try tightening your mouth instead" [27]. And yet he has the hide to prate about civility.

My position is simple: every single one of my edits was intended to improve the article, not to make a WP:POINT; his edits have been blatantly for no reason but to make a point. My preferred versions of these articles are each objectively better than his, completely independent of our personal dispute; he no longer even claims that his changes are actually improving the articles, but merely objects to having them reverted. Therefore I am justified in restoring those versions, while by reinstating his changes he is engaging in what he has explicitly acknowledged to be an edit war. On examining my conscience here I find it completely clear; while I have certainly been provoked by him, I have not let my feelings affect the content of my edits (as opposed to the choice of which articles to edit in the first place). So I see no reason to retreat, and I will not. -- Zsero (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look into this guys. If it is really just about "was president" vs."is a former president", let me point you to WP:LAME. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's "...was president of <country>..." vs "...is a <nationality> politician. S/he served as president of <country>..." The longer version carries exactly the same meaning as the shorter one; therefore it needs tightening, especially in a lede, and especially in a lede sentence, which should make the best case for the subject's notability. -- Zsero (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved passerby: "is a <nationality> politician" starts the topic with who the person currently is, as appropriate to an article on a living person. The next sentence (who s/he was) covers the claim-to-fame or notability, also as appropriate. But if the first sentence were dropped, the article wouldn't start with who the person is now; it might be farmer or housewife or political prisoner or convicted embezzler or international fugitive, for all the reader can guess. Don't bury the lede! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust me Dab, I know it is lame. I regret ever having stumbled on the pages of former US leaders. If I hadn't done, everything would have carried on normal for Zsero and me both and we would never have met!!! I've already surrendered the revisions I created on those articles and now find myself arguing on the structures of others. First of all, thanks for noticing that I have tried to compromise. That means a lot to me. But to better explain my siatuation, please read this reply to another admin in response to a warning which I have received for uncivil conduct. In addition, I give you the word of a gentleman that no further insults or uncivil language will be used by me (not even reference to vandalism or trolling which are not strictly attacks). Evlekis (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology tag?

Hi dab- I saw your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Etymology page. I'm looking for a standard or maybe a template for adding a brief etymology for a given term at the beginning of an article on the given term. For example, I would like to mention the German origin for the English brewing term trub. Can you point me to any guidance? Thanks. Eric ^talk 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

hm, I don't think there is a template for German etymologies. We have such templates for some Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese), but Indo-European or specifically Germanic etymologies are mostly just in the article body. Here is a recent example I added; it's a good idea to include a link to wiktionary, and use {{lang}} tags as far as possible,

The word white continues Old English hwīt, ultimately from a Common Germanic *x^wītaz also reflected in OHG (h)wîz, ON hvítr, Goth. ƕeits. The root is ultimately from a PIE *k^wid-, surviving also in Sanskrit cvid "to be white or bright" and perhaps Slavic svet' "light".

:The word ''[[:wikt:white|white]]'' continues [[Old English]] ''{{lang|ang|hwīt}}'', ultimately from a [[Common Germanic]] ''{{lang|gem|*x^wītaz}}'' also reflected in [[Old High German|OHG]] ''{{lang|goh|(h)wîz}}'', [[Old Norse|ON]] ''{{lang|non|hvítr}}'', [[Gothic language|Goth.]] ''{{lang|got|ƕeits}}''. The root is ultimately from a [[PIE]] ''{{PIE|*k^wid-}}'', surviving also in [[Sanskrit]] ''{{IAST|cvid}}'' "to be white or bright" and perhaps Slavic ''{{lang|sla-Latn|svet'}}'' "light".

--dab (𒁳) 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That's good stuff, but more than I want to put in the first line--I might just put something in parentheses. Good tip to link it to wikt. Eric ^talk 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of India theory

• 10:03, 29 May 2008 Dbachmann protected Out of India theory ‎ (anon edit warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to discuss this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:Out of India theory. --TS 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are doing something very useful in undertaking a "large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections". Let people handle this on a case-by-case basis.

for many well-developed articles, there is simply no compelling reason to not semiprotect them. The idea that semiprotection is somehow intrinsically harmful is misguided. It is harmful for stub articles, but not necessarily for well-developed ones. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a similar review at talk:Tarkhan (Punjab).

This is a wiki and the idea is that people should be able to edit it; we don't need a compelling reason not to stop people editing an article. --TS 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Incarceration, Race, and Inequality

Hello Dbachmann, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Incarceration, Race, and Inequality has been removed. It was removed by Arkelweis with the following edit summary '(AFAIK, there's no reason why we need to trim non-malicious redirects down, so dePROD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Arkelweis before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't back down

I wish you would write an essay expanding on this little gem. It is a large factor in many tendentious battles all over Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that on Wikipedia, it is wrong to second-guess personal motivations. If an editor is out of line, warn-block them, it is not our business, let alone our duty, to speculate on psychological problems an editor may be having. The above comment deviates from this principle, I think it can be excused by the unprecedented show of stark malignant narcissism on the part of the user concerned, but such asides are best buried in talk history. The bottom line remains, if an editor is making trouble, show them the door. Their psychological landscape is their own to sort out, off-wiki. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Your reasoning is sound. Still, I thought your post was great. Finell (Talk) 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ddviticus

Have you seen that the above user has singled you out as one of a group of admins with a "racist agenda"? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In their 8th edit ever, no less[28]. Probably a returning Hindutvavadi sock. I'm not keeping track of these. People accusing me of "racism" invariably turn out to mean "refusing to subscribe to my brand of racism". --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to see such accusations on the encyclopedia. How best to get it off quickly? Can I just remove it from his userpage? A wikiquette alert would be a clunky method, wouldn't it? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

in my experience, it isn't worth creating wikidrama over these things. Users with such an attitude, also known as "trolls", do not last. Nobody expects this account to contribute anything of value, and it is just a matter of administrative indulgence if the account is blocked now or later. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists vs. outlines

You may want to comment here. Something needs to be done quickly. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"something needs to be done" about an editor doing mass moves without discussion? I daresay there is a time-honoured approach to dealing with such cases. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines

Warning: Multiple comma abuses

Hello, if you have a problem with outlines, which many people do, can I suggest you get concensus at a central page, such as WP:WPOOK or WP:OUTLINE, rather than each individual page, the discussions are easier to find, reply to and read that way, and if you get a concensus then I don't mind you merging the pages.

Since our last 'discussion' I have been reading numerous debates over the issue and I am willing to call it a day on outlines if there is concensus to do so, so feel free to discuss, but do it more productively and efficiantly, for an easier time for everybody.

Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Can you reply on my talk page please, it saves me having to watch your very busy page for replies.

PPS. Why are you moving outlines from 'Outline of X' to 'Topic Outline of X', if you want them in the portal-space isn't that just a waste of everyone's time? Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

this "WPOOK" thing has indeed been a giant waste of everybody's time. Mostly because the WPOOK people would not listen to the issues raised.

It isn't my chosen task on Wikipedia to defeat WPOOK, so I am willing to tolerate them as long as they do not interfere with other articles. By "interfering" I mean undiscussed moves, copy-pasting of content and proselytization style spamming in hatnotes and "see also" sections. --dab (𒁳) 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In that answer you adressed neither of my points; could you debate the existance/location of outlines at a central page rather than each individual page, and why are you making seemingly pointless moves. Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only can I debate this at a central page, I already have done so, repeatedly and in great detail. My opinion hasn't changed, so I see no point in repeating myself. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you seem to insist on repeating yourself so, until you have a consensus (which according to your argument and The Transhumanist's talkpage should be quite easy), please refrain from individual move debates. Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will indeed "refrain from individual move debates" as I do not want to move anything. I will simply revert undiscussed moves, and I will take it upon myself to block people who continue to indulge in mass moves without discussion in spite of being asked to stop. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

telugu people are indo aryan

Jaggi81 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Not sure why modern historians dont look at it that way. I will let you know when I find some reliable source. Usually andhra people are fair skinned, has sharp features and language is highly sanskritized. Even Telugu kings considered themselves aryan.Jaggi81 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

yes, why don't you let me know once you find reliable sources on that. --dab (𒁳) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you think about this link

http://www.vepachedu.org/Andhra-Telangana.html.

Please Chek this.Jaggi81 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Sanskrit writings from the 7th century BC describe the Andhra people as Aryans from the north who migrated south of the Vindhya Range and mixed with non-Aryans.

User:Jaggi81|Jaggi81]] (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref:http://www.e-greenstar.com/India/Andhra-Pradesh-info.htm

Ref:http://www.archaeolink.com/gadabas_asian_minority_studies.htm

Ref:http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580539/andhra_pradesh.html

Ref:http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Andhra_Pradesh_-_History/id/4792596

Ref:http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pvVOd2L0cC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Andhra+people+as+Aryans+from+the+north&source=bl&ots=uPNGeGU6At&sig=rxeRTkEMNrk4yARrE69tu2NSqrw&hl=en&ei=3JbKSr4EjOeUB4bZqJID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=Andhra%20people%20as%20Aryans%20from%20the%20north&f=false

and many more 

say : Sanskrit writings from the 7th century BC describe the Andhra people as Aryans from the north who migrated south of the Vindhya Range and mixed with non-Aryans. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

wrf to article Telugu Brahmins

I am working on making it a clean article, meeting the standards, offline. And I notice that you removed most of the info.

Can I get an earlier version of the article attached to my namespace so that I can finish the work, and then delete it?

Kiranmayee Kiranmayee&#124కిరణ్మయి (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

why don't you restore the article after you have fixed it so it meets "the standards" (satisfies WP:CITE)? --dab (𒁳) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Topics lists

Our positions are not as far apart as we once believed.

You want the topics lists out of the main namespace (regardless of whether they are named "outline of", "list of topics", etc.)

I wouldn't mind them being moved to an "outline namespace", as long as the new namespace had subpages disabled, and was included in Wikipedia searches by default. (Moving outlines to portal space, which has thousands of subpages, would effectively bury those outlines because searches that include portal space are virtually unreadable because of the myriad cryptic subpage paths that show up in the search results).

At the moment, I'm trying to consolidate the topics lists, by gathering them into the outline collection and cleaning them up, rather than create a bunch of new outlines on the same subjects, leaving the hodgepodge of topics lists lying around where someone may come along and find them and decide to build a complete set of those!

If you'd rather not have a growing set of topics lists and a set of outlines, you should support the renaming of topics lists to outlines. I think you and I both agree that the topics lists are a big mess. I'd like to clean up that mess by getting rid of the title "List of x topics" altogether.

Don't you?

The more outlines there are, the greater the possibility of a proposal for a new outline namespace succeeding.

Just some thoughts.

Let me know what you think.

The Transhumanist    20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"If you'd rather not have a growing set of topics lists and a set of outlines, you should support the renaming of topics lists to outlines." - or, y'know, oppose this ridiculously stupid and impossible to maintain duplication of extant pages. That would make more sense than supporting the name change. → ROUX ₪ 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see TT acknowledging the duplication and impossible to maintain points. It is clear TT has never tried to actually maintain an article on a complex topic. He is just happy to churn out pages by the dozen and leave them to rot.

I want the topic lists and the "outlines" out of main namespace. If TT can get a consensus for a new namespace just for his pet project, that's fine with me. These "outlines" are a gigantic waste of time. As long as TT wastes only his own time with them, I have no objection. But as long as he keeps clambering around main namespace with them, he will invariably also waste other editors' time, which isn't acceptable.

it TT must waste his time with these "outlines", let him to so in Portal: space for now, until he gets consensus for his personal Outline: namespace, after which he will be free to move them all there.

the quote

The more outlines there are, the greater the possibility of a proposal for a new outline namespace succeeding.

illustrates TT's approach to WP perfectly: he measures "content" in number of pages, or number of characters, never mind quality. Create as many pages as possible before anyone notices, and you will then be able to present a fait accompli and leave your mess for others to sort out.

TT is unable to absorb criticism, and unable to see that nobody wants his "outlines" simply because they are completely devoid of content, and have no use in an encyclopedia that is already indexed with hierarchical categories, and on top of that full-text searchable.

It is in principle immaterial whether a useless page is called "list of x topics" or "outline of x", but "list of x topics" is at least straightforward, and has some sort of tradition. With a "list of water topics" you at least know what to expect, while "outline of water" just smacks of surrealism. So, TT, if you want to collapse the "outlines" and the "lists of topics", how about moving all the "outlines"? --dab (𒁳) 08:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande - Persian Empire

Look Dbachmann, I'm going to honest here: you have stumbled with upon a can of worms. If you have the patience please read the following slowly and carefully.

The former article with the title 'Persian Empire' was more or less a list of every state whose name could include the word Persian you can see the former article here. Don't ask me how or why, don't blame me, but it somehow managed to become a "60k Top priority content that matches the Farsi and is still part of Wiki 1.0". The standards of the English wiki seem to be a bit strange (at the very least).

More or less recently several users agreed that this article needed a full-scale reform. They couldn't agree into exactly what, but the article had to changed.

They changed the article into a mere and temporary re-direct towards Achaemenid Empire. They forgot to do the same with Persian empire (noticed the big difference?) but that's a mere minor blunder.

As far as I can judge this matter User:Ottava Rima managed to argue ad nauseam against any new article. No reform, no nothing, he wants the old article back as it was. This created a nice impasse.

The result thus far is that 'Persian Empire' continues and will continue a mere re-direct.

My personal position on this matter is the following:

1. The name 'Achaemenid Empire' is completly unknown to the average English-speaker. He knows it by 'Persian Empire' and not 'Achaemenid Empire'.
2. The name 'Persian Empire' is used nearly everywhere for 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended by Alexander' (provided the language is English). This can be seen in English publications.
3. It's certainly true that a minority of books uses 'Achaemenid Empire' (or something similar) in their titles. However there are way more books with the title 'Persian Empire'.
4. There are no films or TV documentaries (in English) which use 'Achaemenid Empire' that I know of. Granted I can't know them all, but I have seen a lot in the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Discover Civilization, BBC documentaries etc. I never heard any them even mention an 'Achaemenid Empire'. Have you perchance?
5. The English mass media (TV documentaries, films, etc) uses 'Persian Empire'. Can anyone find me an English film using 'Achaemenid Empire' (or something similar) in its title. We know that that the mass media uses 'Persian Empire'.
6. All other historical states of that area use other common English names. Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sassanid Empire, etc.
7. The English Wikipedia should preferably use common English names.
8. The Farsi wiki is not a good argument. This isn't the Farsi wiki, this is the English wiki (different languages can have different understandings - this seems to be one of those cases).

ERGO the current 'Achaemenid Empire'-article should be moved towards 'Persian Empire' asap.

I gave my reasons and proposed a move in Talk:Achaemenid Empire#Proposed move towards 'Persian Empire'. I was clumsy and a bit arrogant (hey what do you want? I was betting on common knowledge and common sense :). The end result was No Consensus for move. I can only ask you to study (if you want) all answers very carefully.

My interpretation of their answers (again study their answers by yourself the following are solely my own conclusions)

• Several Users seem to find the present status-quo quite acceptable (Persian Empire = redirect towards Achaemenid Empire).
• Others seem to want an agreement in the talkpage of 'Persian Empire' first. Don't ask me why but they don't seem very keen to argue with Ottava Rima. Talking with him is like fighting against windmills.
• Only User:Warrior4321 dared to even suggest that Persian Empire was not common name used for the state in question. Most of the others avoided this issue altogether (one can only wonder why).
• Other defend that 'Achaemenid Empire' is a more specialized term which leaves no doubt whatsoever. I admit that that is indeed so. One only has to completely ignore my points above (Nr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Most of us never even heard of the 'Achaemenid Empire' at all, but hey it's a specialized term.

A major issue is the following: The opposition is right in one thing: there is indeed and without any doubt a degree of ambiguity with the name and term Persia. Not with the name 'Persian Empire', there is a big and clear diff between the two - of course to someone completely ignorant in this matter it's all the same.

Persia isn't equal to Iran. 'Persia' and 'Empire of Persia' are to the best of my knowledge a dated 'catch-all term' for the entire cultural/geographical area and were used as such by the Western world until quite recently.

The rulers of some these historical states: 'Parthian Empire', 'Sassanid Empire' (and some others) loudly proclaimed that they were re-establishing the old Persian Empire. The Persian people and Persian culture was/still is very much alive and kicking (and these loud proclamations re-establishment of former glories was music to their ears). The Persian people and culture (another nice term for the two things is 'nation') formed a major part and support of these empires. That's why western/Christian sources often spoke and wrote of 'Persia' and of the 'Empire of Persia' when they were talking of later states. That's why one of alternative names for the Sassanid Empire is 'Sassinid Persian Empire', 'NeoPersian Empire', etc. However these are not the common English names for theses stations, but rather alternative and known names.

Try the following: go to the site of the History Channel and type: 'Persia' (the resume is IMHO very good indeed). Then try 'Cyrus the Great', 'Darius III', 'Alexander the Great' and 'Persian Empire'. To finish try: 'Achaemenid Empire'. Reach your own conclusions. And yes I know that the History Channel is not a respectable source and it does some mistakes. That's not the point at all. The point is that we can be sure that the History Channel will use the common English name.

If you ask me, we (or someone) could and should create an article under 'Persia'.

Already confused? Good :)

Let me be very clear: 'Persia' and 'Empire of Persia' is indeed ambiguous. 'Persian Empire' however is clearly NOT (at least in English, and not today).

The other guys are avoiding this point. 'Persia' and 'Empire of Persia' can be (and have been) used for many historical states. Today when we speak about the 'Persian Empire' 99% of the time we and nearly everybody else, are talking about the state 'founded by Cyrus and ended by Alexander'.

A good example would be the following: Parthian Empire for the historical state (using the common English name) and Parthia for the geographical/cultural region. Please read the second article carefully, it describes the region under the rule of several states (including the Parthian Empire).

This is what 'Persian Empire', 'Persia', 'Empire of Persia' need. An article about the historical state: 'Persian Empire', and 'Achaemenid Empire' is a redirect. An article about the dated term which was/is used for a geographical/cultural area: 'Persia', and 'Empire of Persia' becomes a redirect towards it.

The current status-quo can be kept, no doubts about it. However this will mean that we won't create any article at 'Persian Empire', at all. No disambiguation, no nothing. Reason? We can't create an article with a common English name and then write about something else (ie.: we can't simply ignore the common name of a subject and pretend that the name is about something else).

Therefore we can:

• A) Keep the status-quo. The subject stays at Achaemenid Empire and Persian Empire, Persian empire, etc stay or become re-directs towards it. I think that this will mean that no article will be created at 'Persian Empire' at all.
• B) Move 'Achaemenid Empire' towards 'Persian Empire' as this is the common English name.
• C) Turn 'Persian Empire' into a dab, move the dab towards Persian Empire, or turn Persian Empire into a redirect towards the dab. The end result is the same. An user types: "Persian Empire" and he ends up with a dab. The argument behind C is that 'Persian Empire' is an ambiguous name.

I will ask you the following: If it is (supposedly) so ambiguous, how come so many English books (published in the last 50 years) use 'Persian Empire' as a title and describe the same state again, again, and again?

Nevermind Google, go directly to Amazon.com, type: Persian Empire, and look inside of the books (title Persian Empire - something similar). They all describe the same state. Try to find 'ten books written in last 50 years with the title 'Persian Empire' (not 'Persia', that's another name with a different meaning, 'Persia' is vague, 'Persian Empire' isn't) but which describe another state. I mean if the name is so ambiguous it should happen, right?

You won't find ten books (written in the last 50 year) and why? Because in English 'Persian Empire' is not vague at all. IMHO that leaves us only with option A and option B.

I mean, technically we could but we shouldn't. That actually reminds that "we" already are doing this, and boy isn't the result a gigantic cluster-fuck (yes, I'm blunt and quite honest).

The cluster-fuck - the following has precious little to do with 'Persian Empire'

So why am I wasting all this time and effort talking to to you? Good question. Well, first I suffer a bit from insomnia, second I'm quite stubborn when I know that I'm right. Third, it's because I'm seeing a trend in the English wikipedia. Common sense (and common names) are, here and there, falling victims to ignorance or political agendas. Under which name do you know the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus? How about the current country of China? How about the current de facto country of Taiwan? (don't ask me how "we" managed keep the Kosovo article, it was probably some kind of miracle).

China and Taiwan are IMHO the most blatant examples of double-standards. The excuse is the following: "Wikipedia doesn't take any side in the 'which is the true China conflict'". (again: I can only wonder how Kosovo managed to escape this kind of "logic").

The sad result is that the English wiki simply tramples upon clear common English names, clear common international English use, and took common sense behind the barn and shot it between the eyes :). But hey "wikipedia has to be neutral". It's a stupid excuse; the Kosovo-article is AFAIK extremely neutral but it clearly uses the common English name. So does the Republic of Macedonia (not FYROM). So why can't we do the same with China and Taiwan? In my opinion the excuse is just that, a completely false excuse (ie: a lie plain old lie used for dubious purposes), and it stinks of bullshit.

To be very honest I believe that a group of "anti-communist freedom fighters" are simply waging a pitiful "guerrilla war" against the current Chinese government. And the English wiki is their chosen battlefield. But hey "wikipedia has to be neutral". Flamarande (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC) PS: So in the bitter end what do I wish and want? I want you to do to something, please. If you can't do it yourself for whatever reason, at least advise me. Advise me about 'Persian Empire', 'China', and 'Taiwan'. Just don't give me the answer: 'I'm an administrator and I can't do nothing about this.'

um, I am not sure why you are posting all of this to my page, seeing that we agree perfectly, and I am fully aware of all you tell me here. It is very plain that there is no "debate" here, and I really do not see why people are so intent on honouring Ottava Rima's attempts to create drama with so much attention. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was sure that 'you were in favour of the status-quo, that Persian Empire was ambiguous, and in favour of 'Achaemenid Empire'.'

The problem with Ottova is that he is not letting go (and I somehow doubt that he ever will) and other users have voted against any change, arguing and demanding that we solve the issue at the talkpage first (ie: everybody has to agree first). Do you truly believe that all of us are going to agree in this particular issue? So how should I proceed? What's your advice? Should I copy everything above cluster-fuck and paste it inside Talk:Persian Empire? Do you advise any changes to the text? Flamarande (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Could you also give me some feedback about 'China' and 'Taiwan'?

Did you look at the article before commenting on it?

"dab", how can it appear to you that the article that was moved to outline of triangles is an outline of the triangle article? Obviously it is nothing of the sort; it's a list of many articles about triangle-related topics. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the original "list" title was unambiguous and should not have been changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK.... you certainly were not clear about that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

dimale

i see that youve discussed with megistias so can you please check the two versions here and help us solve a problem..?mine his the admin cant see that the different sizes are because megistias uses whole paragraphs as footnotes even using 3 of them to cite the modern location of the site that repeat the same info while removing actual additional information....85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

oh..and the article was like this when i found it [29] but megistias 'likes' only some of my adds...85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

i think the issue is that he thinks im the 'sock' of an albanian user and thats why i add the various viewpoints about the provenance of the city but...im actually greek and wrote some stuff on the greek minority in albania months ago..but a 'patriot' like megistias cant understand that...since the other admin wont check the two versions please give n opinion85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ip user, not only you wouldnt put a proper title but it is evident that for that book for sure that you didnt even have that part available.Megistias (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Provide inline citations and links to verify your source if you want to continue.And dont spare the title this time.You have refused the add that title for over a month now.Megistias (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

he now thinks that im making stuff up about hammonds belief that the city was founded by greeks even though his whole problem with my version is the article saying 'greek or illyrian' city instead of 'certainly greek'...i cant reason here85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's really wierd on this is that M.V.Sakellariou (she's the author of the book) doesn't say for sure that it had been founded by Parthinoi, on the contrary there is a '3 if' hypothesis explained in the article's talk page.Alexikoua (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We should keep this in the Dimale talk page.The latest jstor offered by IPuser does not write what he says.Megistias (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1 sakellariou is a man..2 sakellariou is the editor of the whole volume hatzopoulos wrote the article so im trying to discuss with people who dont even have access to the volume...i expect such arguments from megistias but not you alex..and megistias cant even understand what 'page number' means i wont write anything else here but please read the different article versions Dbachmann..85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

a final comment i used hatzopoulos as a source since a greek historian writing that dimale was probably originally illyrian would be acceptable to both greek and albanian users...high hopes..85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You refused to put the proper title for that for not 1 but 2 months now.We dont put chapter titles instead of book titles,somethings fishy.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

i added both chapter and book title85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas

Haven't I seen something about "Kambojas" before on WP:FTN? I've just removed a chunk of absolute nonsense from Cham people [30]. Proto Malay was likewise afflicted. Seems this stuff has been added to many South-East Asian history pages. Know anything about the background? Folantin (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is user Satbir Singh (talk · contribs), apparently a scion of the Kambojas, who is absolutely fixated on imposing on us at least a dozen lengthy and absolutely jumbled articles on the Kambojas, a tribe of Indian antiquity about which practically nothing is known. His "sources" are mostly raw Sanskrit quotes and snippets of 19th century scholarship cobbled together out of context.

They are interesting in the context of the spread of Hinduism to SE Asia because they seem to have given their name to Cambodia but we would need to keep Satbir Singh at bay to allow somebody more, ahem, encyclopedically aware to turn the vast amount of references he has dumped into a halfway encyclopedic account.

The best approach would be to convert all his material grouped in Category:Kambojas into a large workpage and try to build an actual article from there. --dab (𒁳) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This, for example, looks like pure nonsense. Is the idea that all the Indic cultures of South-East Asia were founded by the "Kambojas"? --Folantin (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Satbir's general idea appears to be that Kambojas rock and that therefore they dominated everywhere between Babylon and Vietnam. --dab (𒁳) 18:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother, it looks like we have an Augean stable of informational dreck. --Folantin (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

indeed. There is a lot of interesting material in there, certainly enough for one good article. The Kambojas appear as a tribal kingdom in the Hindukush in the 6th c. BC or so, quite possibly belonging to the Scythian or Saka sphere. The name Cambyses may indeed be related. Then, over the period of a millennium, they appear to set up a nuumber of kingdoms in India, and in the early centuries AD somehow to make it to SE Asia. After that, they disappear from the historical record, but apparently Kamboj persists as a gotra name or something in the Punjab. That's really about it, I think, that's what the article should say. --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)--dab (𒁳) 18:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's when they are taking over SE Asia and giving their name to, e.g., the Cham people that we have problems. Now where might the ancestors of the Cham, who speak an Austronesian language related to Malay, come from? Scythia via Tibet...or Borneo? It's a toughie. --Folantin (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

at some point, it's just about a dynastic name. Like the Mughals who certainly didn't speak Mongolic any longer, or the British who have very little to do with the Priteni. --dab (𒁳) 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't I remember Dr Boubouleix being cited by this chap (Satbir Singh) a while back? Moreschi (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to do a bit of clean-up, but probably taking a much too long way round. Would be very pleased for any comments on my edits. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a major task. Maybe I'll get back to it when I have the time and the enthusiasm. --Folantin (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified tags on Race and intelligence?

Hello again Dab. I’m having an issue with an article that’s kind of similar to the one I was having with Race and crime, so after all the help you gave me with that article, you’re who I thought I should go to about this new issue also.

The article Race and intelligence has several tags that I don’t think are justified. It’s had the POV tag for five months and the unbalanced tag for a year and a half, but the editors who added these tags aren’t making any effort to improve the article. They’ve said on the talk page that they aren’t actually interested in doing so; they just want the tags to remain there indefinitely because they have a problem with the way the article currently presents this topic.

Their problem with the article is that presents a balanced view between the environment-based interpretation of the difference in average IQ between races and the hereditarian viewpoint about this, and they have a problem with a balanced presentation of this controversy because they consider the latter a “fringe” view. According to WP:UNDUE, a viewpoint should be considered a “significant minority” view rather than a “fringe” view if one can easily name prominent adherents of it. Since some proponents of the hereditarian hypothesis (such as Jensen, Gottfredson and Eysenck) are definitely prominent, I think this theory fits Wikipedia’s definition of a significant-minority view, but some of the other editors there disagree.

I’d appreciate your help with this. The relevant discussion is here, towards the bottom. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Algiz infobox

Template:Algiz infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about outlines

From what I know, you are opposed to the concept of including outlines in Wikipedia. Could you care to enlighten me as to why? I would like to have an understanding from the opposing side. Thank you. And please don't just link to a page where you explained it before, I just want a clean-cut answer. -- penubag  (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why I am expected to repeat my position to every editor interested individually. I have expressed it repeatedly, in great detail, at the relevant discussion pages.

"please don't just link to a page where you explained it before" is especially cheeky. What makes you assume that my earlier explanations were anything less thn clean-cut?

I do not think it gets any more clean-cut than this, for example, so please read the diff.

An "outline" in my understanding, and in the understanding of OED is a summary of an article. This is not what your "outlines" are, so the term is already misleading. Plus, we don't do standalone summaries of other articles. The actual article summaries we give are known as WP:LEAD. But your "outlines" are lists of Wikipedia articles. Compiling lists of Wikipedia articles is an indexing effort, and as such plainly does not belong in article namespace but under Portal:Contents.

No, I am not "opposed to the concept of including outlines in Wikipedia", I could not care less about the concept, just as long as these "outlines" are filed as subpages of Portal:Contents where they belong. I have yet to hear a single coherent argument why these "outlines" should not be subpages of Portal:Contents. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. But I can't help to point out that outlines are basically "list of ..." articles on steroids, which are in the article namespace themselves. I see no problem with Lists in article namespace so I don't see why outlines are such a trouble. If you are looking for the consensus, I believe it doesn't exist, and neither does it for Lists. -- penubag  (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

that's probably becaue you ddn't pay attention. It is correct that "outlines" are "list of ..." articles. But the question is, what is "..."? WP:LIST is for cases where "..." is an encyclopedic topic. In the case of "outlines", "..." is "Wikipedia articles". There is a crucial difference, please try to wrap your head around this. "list of Wikipedia articles" articles do not belong in main namespace, because "Wikipedia articles" are not themselves an encyclopedic topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why that is such a big problem for you. But either way, outlines are not about individual articles, but topics. May I please ask you to read one short paragraph explaining my point further; it'll take less than one minute, I promise. Wikipedia:WPOOK#So.2C_what_are_outlines.3F -- penubag  (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

you can post essays on "what are outlines" all you want, the bottom line remains that the "outline of X" pages cluttering article namespace are de facto lists of articles, with a lead ripped via copy-paste from the actual article. What outlines are not is encyclopedic articles about an encyclopedic topic, so whatever they are, they do not belong in our main namespace. The question is not what is a "big problem" for me. The question is why it is such a big problem for you guys to take your outlines and move them to Portal: space as requested. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Vedic Aryans???

Do you happen to know if the above phrase means anything? (See Kambojas, yawn.) Is it simply outdated racial history nonsense, or could it be a way of saying "Indo-European tribe mentioned in the Vedas"? Or something else entirely? Thanks for any pointers. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Vedic Aryans" very much does mean something. It means that we are talking about the actual Rigvedic tribes who used the self-designation arya. That's sort of the original bona fide usage of "Aryans". It is anachronistic to say "Indo-European tribe mentioned in the Vedas" because the Vedas obviously don't have any concept of "Indo-European" (a concept that was non-existent prior to the 1780s.

The Kambojas, however, are not "Vedic Aryans" because they do not appear in the Vedas. They are first mentioned in Panini and in the Sanskrit epics, i.e. in what is clearly the post-Vedic period. Any attempt to argue that the Kambojas are "Vedic" is completely misleading. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misunderstood

All I have done is give relevant info based on published 3rd party quotes with references listed. Don't remove useful quotes and verifiable important information. Yes, this band is still receiving honors even now, so they are added by me with references. I was singer in this band that was to be huge but got ruined by the Nam war draft just on London mega-launch. Bummer. What conflict of interest? I was in a band 45 years ago and there is conflict of interest today? I have done a number of pages for Wikipedia over the years, so why pick on us?--Rickbrown9 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I couldn't say anything about myself, only 3rd party published quotes were acceptable in my own case, or case of my 45 year old band. So if anything came up new that added to the value of the article I just put it in.

If I put in all the 3rd party quotes it would fill 500 pages. So I've only used a few important references in our article. NOTHING by me.

When something is to be done, am I supposed to ask my wife or son to do it? What the difference, as long as it verifiable 3rd party published info

"So now what "3rd party quotes" do you want deleted? There are no bad quotes because you can search the web and you won't find even one bad rap. What should I do now, vandalize my article? I understand about original research, and that's why every single word is 3rd party published referenced information.

I love rules and laws as much as the next guy. Please advise "what to do" about this. I actually believe I'm helping Wikipedia.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alun / Wobble

Dab,

I would appreciate you taking a look at Alun’s recent comments on the Race and intelligence discussion page, particularly in this section. Also here. Many of them seem borderline abusive, and I notice you’ve warned him about this sort of conduct before. I would bring this conduct up with him directly, but another editor involved in the Race and intelligence article already did so yesterday, and it hasn’t improved. I would like to know if there’s anything you can do about the problem in this case. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just found this also, which seems to be another example of something similar.

“I removed some text that cited a blog post. We use reliable sources here, not claims made by people on blogs, especially biased racist blogs like those fascists at gene expression. This site it¨s the antithesis of what Wikipedia stands for.”

Since several of the Gene Expression authors (such as Quizkajer) are editors here, calling Gene Expression’s authors "fascists" is a personal attack on other Wikipedia users. Looking at all of this Alun’s edits, they seem to be editing here with a clear agenda. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alun clearly isn't helping. The "fascists" remark clearly illustrates his position, anybody who dares to examine a correlation of genes and traits in the individual is a fascist? That's rather close to a "science is fascism" position, the sort you find at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The only difference being that for the bible-thumpers, it is evil to look at evolution, while for Alun, it is evil to look at race and population genetics. People with such preconceptions should not edit an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"People with such preconceptions should not edit an encyclopedia."

I was hoping you'd blocked him from editing the articles in question, but nothing seems to have changed.

The Race and intelligence article has had a lot of issues lately. I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, because Fixcentrics raised a similar concern here. I've also described some of them here and in my user talk.

I may have made this problem worse by edit warring with Ramdrake, so there's a possibility of him and me being blocked from editing the article for some amount of time, but that won't be enough to fix the rest of its problems. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at some of what else has been going on with this article, and see if you can come up with a solution that addresses all of them. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

look, I can't just go around blocking people who are trolling topics where I myself may consider editing actively, not unless they are very clearly out of line. If you want uninvolved admins, go to WP:ANI. Yes I know the "race and intelligence" articles are a troll magnet. I'm sorry about it but I can't fix Wikipedia single-handedly. I am called fascist or racist on a daily basis here, invariably by racist editors who are unhappy they cannot have their way. It doesn't raise my blood pressure. It is actually a good thing if trolls rant about fascists etc. because that makes them more easily recognizable. The most annoying trolls are those who manage to pose as sensitive and concerned without ever losing countenance. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

what is the point?

I wouldn't mind your following me around to accuse me things quite so much if you actually read what I wrote. Has it just become automatic with you? Or are you really just this thoughtless? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rubenstein, you have assumed bad faith (which I am probably about to do myself). You have also been consistently trolling. You have in the course of that been consistently making ad hominem remarks which are personal attacks. You may be disrupting wikipedia, POV-pushing, and editing tendentiously. You may also be harassing people by placing this sort of material on their user pages. You may also be wikihounding individuals at times. Please stop. Fixentries (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never followed Slrubenstein around. Sometimes he gave me the impression he was following me around, doing exactly what he is now accusing me of, but I have always assumed that was because he genuinely thought he was in the right and on top of the topic in question. Is Slrubenstein a troll? I don't think so. The above post sounds like sincere annoyance. But Slrubenstein should seriously stay away from the "race" topics, where he causes wikidrama without end. He isn't even pushing a "pov" so much, in my experience he is just generally trying to make life as difficult as possible for anybody daring to edit race topics. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech

All he has done since arriving is trolling on the Kosovo talk page. Please ban him from it. Thanks, --Cinéma C 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:

My patience for enduring such insulting comments from you, especially your latest on the Urartu talk page, has reached the tipping point. You are an administrator, and you have absolutely no right to speak to an editor who is genuinely involved in the editing and discussing process in such an insulting tone, constantly bashing them with hateful language and telling them off due to simple disagreements. I find your mission to rid Wikipedia of nationalist trolls highly admirable but the manner in which you do it is far too heavy-handed flawed. I find it rather silly that I, a lowly editor, have to remind you of these things considering that "civility" is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Your blatant disregard for the arguments of other editors and inclination to engage in revert wars have created a hostile atmosphere on the Armenia-Azerbaijani articles. Please note I will not be as indulgent as in the past if I continue to hear more language bordering on racism. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't give me the "lowly editor" speech. If you understand how Wikipedia works, you know that admins are just as "lowly editors" as you who have been trusted to use a number of buttons responsibly. The fact that I have these buttons makes no difference whatsoever in a dicussion where I am neither using them nor threatening to use them.

As for your being insulted, I fail to see how it is insulting to tell you to please take the discussion to a place where it is on topic. I would be prepared to apologize for my tone if you couldn't deal out as good as you get. "Hateful language"? "Racism"? Excuse me? My mission at Talk:Urartu is get the talkpage clean of ethnic bickering so the article can go back to discussing an iron age kingdom. You are calling me a racist for telling people to stuff their ethnic bickering, or "racism" if you prefer, or at least take it to a venue where it is on topic? I have not even touched any "Armenia-Azerbaijani article" so far, let alone edit-warred over one. If you think Urartu is an "Armenia-Azerbaijani article", that would appear to be your problem. The actual "Armenia-Azerbaijani article" would be at Armenia–Azerbaijan relations and Nagorno-Karabakh. You are interested in Armenia–Azerbaijan relations? Then do stop editing the Urartu article and go there.

The bottom line is, you made empty accusations of "plagiarism". As soon as I tell you that you have no case whatsoever in terms of content, you switch to wikidrama mode, giving me the "civility, racism, hateful language" treatment. I can't tell you just how tired I am of this move. It doesn't even do anything for you except make you look chep, so why do you even bother. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to Kambojas, if you don't mind

Hello again. Apparently, the link between the Kambojas and the Rig Veda is as follows: Upamanyu, a rishi, is mentioned in Rig Veda 1.102.9. And he is the ancestor of another figure who was definitely a Kamboja. I know that these are legendary figures, and that the connections are speculation, but I don't know if it is respectable speculation, or outdated scholarship or just nonsense. This is said in the Upamanyu article to be a link to the relevant Rig Veda verse, but it takes me to a page in Sanskrit, which I can't read. There is a link on that page to what should be the same verses in English, but 1.102.9 does not mention Upamanyu by name. Perhaps we are meant to know that he is the "singer" of the hymn to Vishnu?

I'm only bringing this to you because you did say a while ago on FTN that you wished you weren't the only person watching these articles. I've been trying to help out but it is very hard. I've re-read J.P. Mallory (In Search of the Indo-European, chapter The Indo-Europeans in Asia) on the origins of the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, and I'm not sure I'm any the wiser! Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for looking into the Kamboja mess, Judith. I tried to clean it up a little a while back and got frustrated because it was me single-handedly trying to tackle this huge mess. I will come back and try to assist you with it.

As for Upamanyu, I assume this is the name of the rishi of RV 1.102 given in the Anukramani, perhaps because the adjective upamanyu "zealous" appears in the text. These genealogies are all decidedly post-Vedic, probably Pauranic (early medieval). But if Kamboja Aupamanyava is indeed a rishi mentioned in the Vamsa Brahmana, we might conclude that our earliest reference to the name Kamboja, and to Upamanyu as a rishi, still date to the Vedic period. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mention of a sage Kamboja in the Brahmanas is rather dubious, as the reference should appear in Monier-Williams. Here is the kamboja entry in MW:

• kamboja:
  • m. pl. name of a people and its country ; m. the king of this people: Panini
• kāmboja:
  • mfn. born in or coming from Kamboja (as horses): Ramayana
  • m. a native of Kamboja (a race who , like the Yavanas , shave the whole head ; originally a Kshatriya tribe , but degraded through its omission of the necessary rites)
  • a prince of the Kambojas : Mahabharata
  • a horse of the Kamboja breed
  • m. pl. name of a people = kamboja: Manusmrti, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc.

According to MW, thus, earliest mention of the name is in Panini (4rd century BC) and the Sanskrit epics (anywhere between 4th c. BC and 4th c. AD) and Manusmriti (between 2nd c. BC and 2nd c. AD). I do not have access to the text of the Vamsa Brahmana, but if kamboja is attested in the Brahmana period, MW made an uncharacteristic omission here. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

it isn't impossible that Kāmboja appears (as the given name of a sage) in the Vamsa Brahmana, which I understand is a late Vedic list of names. MW caught everything in the samhitas, but he is less complete in the Brahmanas. Such a mention would be significant because it would be the earliest attestation of the name (ca. 600 BC?) but of course it doesn't amount to any mention of the Kambojas themselves. This dovetails nicely with the chronology of "Kamboja awareness" in India: they were unknown in the early Vedic period, they became gradually known as a remote tribe of barbarians or barbarized kshatriyas in the late Vedic period, they become tangible as a remote tribe or kingdom in the early post-Vedic period, and they finally enter India proper along with the Saka invasion in the 2nd century BC. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this link any help? I can see the text string "kamboja" in it. Something you may need to note is that Upamanyu is the rishi of 1.102 while Kamboja Aupamanyava is assumed to be his descendant. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for this link. I think it is safe to say that kāmboja appears as the name of a rishi in the Vamsa Brahmana -- Satbir's Sanskrit quotes are usually accurate, too. The VB, short as it is (basically a list of 53 names), is very interesting as an early source of guru lineages, and I am surprised we don't hear of it more often. It really appears to date to the end of the Brahmana period (7th to 6th century BC), as similar genealogies appear to become fashionable at the time in other texts such as the JUB. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

btw, this case is a good illustration that Satbir's references are solid. He just doesn't have the first idea on how to use them to write an article. It is important to keep in mind when cleaning up the Kambojas mess that there may be nuggets of valuable information in there. I doubt I would have found the Brahmana reference to kaamboja without Satbir's help, and it is certainly relevant as the earliest reference to the name in Sanskrit literature (and incidentially pretty much contemporary to Cambyses himself). --dab (𒁳) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there are many very valuable references in there. I still have a nagging suspicion that there may be plagiarism from a history that celebrates the Kambojas, possibly one of the books by Kirpal Singh Dardi, which seem to be self-published.

I tagged the Kambojas and Cambodia page as a copyvio. It isn't because the copying was the other way round - the Kamboja Society webpage carries a version of the WP article, and I will take the tag off.

But I have another problem with that page, which is the slant. It quotes from an online article by Serge Thion, a historian of Cambodia. Thion's article is definitely RS, but if it is used its argument ought to be presented in the article, and it isn't. Thion derives "Cambodia" from "Kamboja". What he doesn't say is that there was any migration of Kambojas into Cambodia. Instead, he says that this ethonym for not-properly-Hindu peoples north-west of India was transferred to South East Asian peoples who were also thought of as semi-barbarian. Thion's case is strengthened by the fact that he takes three ethnonyms together, and similar processes seem to have occurred. This point of view is completely incompatible with the main argument of the WP pages - which appears to be supported by numerous scholarly references. I don't think there is necessarily a scholarly disagreement, because nobody has taken the time to counterpose the two views. We need to present both, but checking back to all the texts Satbir uses will take a lot of time.

Do you think it is sensible to take a cut-off before which we don't regard works as representing contemporary scholarship? I thought maybe 1945. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Butting in) Serge Thion, not a particularly pleasant person (apparently) - but he's more likely to be right on this subject than Wikipedia's Leading Kamboja Fan. Those South-East Asian countries absorbed a lot of Indian culture but it doesn't mean they absorbed a lot of Indian migrants (although a few Brahmins did make the move). For example, the kings of the current Chakri dynasty of Thailand have all been called Rama but that doesn't make them Indian. Likewise, Ayutthaya, the former capital of Siam was named after Ayodhya; and Amaravati, a town in Champa, was named after the mythical Hindu city. "Kamboja/Cambodia" probably arose in a similar way. --Folantin (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being too timid here. The problem with this walled garden (walled jungle adventure park, more like) is the insane amount of redundancy. Each article begins to ramble about the Kambojas in general and how great they were, repeating the same old sources. We need to clean this out with heavy machinery before we can take out the more finely honed tools to polish the emerging Kambojas article. The "Kambojas and Cambodia" article is essentially about the attestation of the name Kambuj in Indochina. I have made this the Name of Cambodia article now. It should discuss the Indianized kingdoms in the region, and epigraphic attestation of the Indic name. The name of Cambodia establishes Indian (Hindu, Indo-Aryan) presence. But the point that Kambuj may not in fact be a dynastic name but a term for 'semi-barbarians' escapes my stubbed article at present. I have to run for now, but please feel free to introduce it. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The money quote from Thion is this: "So why were all these words used in reference to existing populations of the Subcontinent transported to Indochina? The most likely explanation is that, when Indians came into contact with local populations, the brahmans or the traders retrieved from their geographical memories names of populations (whose real name they probably ignored) which, in their view were similarly marginal and remote. All these people only partially, if at all, observed the brahmanical rules which, in the Indian view, were the most desirable. Local people had no castes, did not observe proper food prohibitions, had different rules for marriage. Under Indian influence, their elite adopted these rules, so they would not be treated as 'dasyu', or savages, like some groups in India who resisted and refused the new social model. If somehow Champa meant 'half-Hinduized', Kamboja 'casteless' and Yona 'non-Hindu foreigner', then these verbal categories could fit the situation Indians were encountering when they mixed with the local Southeast Asian rulers and reorganized the political and economic structures. Early Hindu settlers were using their own mental categories and imposing them on the natives as we see from the documents. It is then not astonishing that they also imposed the names of these new entities, if only because Sanskrit was the vehicle of this cultural transformation. These words had no ethnic content but were, with all due qualifications, political. They said something, which is unfortunately not very clear to us, from the point of view of classical Indian culture."--Folantin (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both inputs, thanks very much. Was depressed to read the article on Thion. I was only aware of him as a co-author with Ben Kiernan. I'm not sure whether there is any shadow over his work on Cambodia - in the meantime we all think this is RS in relation to the name of Cambodia? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The info on his French Wiki bio makes it look even worse, I'm afraid. But the "Kambojas" article we're looking at deals with matters a long time before the 20th century. I really need to buy David Chandler's History of Cambodia, which is the basic work on the topic. I read a borrowed copy years ago. Unfortunately it's only available in snippet form on Google books. Page 13 is the relevant one [31]. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikidas misrepresenting sources again

Since you possibly recall at least one of the previous 3-4 instances when he was similarly caught making up, misrepresenting or selective quoting sources (see this), perhaps you can suggest we can deal with this so that the problem does not simply reoccur ? In the latest instance he plagiarized a "MA thesis" from Instituto Bhaktivedanta de Ciencias y Humanidades A. C., Mexico that concludes that Bhagavata Purana was composed between 3102 BC and 2600BC (and that Vedic age lasted between 8000BC and 2000BC, among other fringe claims). Instead of citing the thesis from which he pulled a quote, he simply cited two sources that the thesis cited, without including any of the contradictory material that even the thesis included! Details here.
Does this have to be taken to arbcom or user RFC to get the user sanctioned, since ample warnings over the last 2 years do not seem to have worked. Abecedare (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

arbcom? RfC? The user is posting blatant nonsense and has been repeatedly warned. What is there to "comment" let alone "arbitrate" about? I should consider this rollback-able. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he was reverted in this particular instance. The problem is that I am sure most of his misrepresentations are uncaught, since he cites ostensibly "reliable sources"; in this case one of his citations was "Majumdar, Bimanbehari. Krishna in History and Legend. University of Calcutta 1969, p. 61", which sounds credible - of course he never actually looked at the source and simply quoted what the non-RS thesis had to say about it. If I had not located the thesis he plagiarized, the fringe material may have still been in the article. Here are some earlier cases over the last 2 years where he has behaved similarly, citing sources that sound credible, but fall apart when examined at depth:

• at Bhakti,
• at Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
• at Svayam Bhagavan
• at Svayam Bhagavan

Is there a way to deal with this disruptive behavior without spending hours researching the true source and context of his additions ? Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

um, wait, in this diff he is only suggesting a pre-Shankara date. Nothing about the BC period, let alone "2600BC". Shankara dates to the 9th century. The BP is usually dated to the 9th or 10th century, but it doesn't seem out of the question to suggest a 8th century date. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See pages [25-26 of the thesis (zip file) for the conclusions and bottom of page 2 for the caveats. The problem is that those pre-Sankara claims have been discredited and the evidence alternatively explained by actual scholars (including the ones cited in the thesis). Only fringe ISCKON sources continue to cite the "evidence" to justify a Vedic dating for BP. It would be fair to add to the article, that ISCKON makes these claims. The problem is that material is being taken from ISKCOn sources and attributed to other "reliable source", without citing any of the caveat that even the ISKCON sources provide! Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talkpage. It is obvious that we cannot use ISCKON "scholarship". Apparently, this was suggested in the 1930s and hasn't found much acceptance. We still need to be clear that dating a Purana to the 8th instead of the 9th century isn't lunatic fringe, it's just quibbling over a century in a date that isn't known with an accuracy to within two centuries in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no argument with that. I had surveyed the literature on the subject a few months back, and you can see my summary at BP. The problem I have with Wikidas's edits here (and elsewhere) is basic honesty in presenting (1) where you obtained material from, and (2) presenting what that source says honestly. In this case, as before, he failed to meet both these requirements. I must admit that misrepresentation of sources is a bugbear for me, and I consider it much more corrosive to building an encyclopedia than simply adding unsourced, POV or even fringe material, since the latter is easier to detect and deal with. Also misrepresenting sources is an active act of deception and cannot be excused by simple ignorance. Wikipedia, IMO, is much too tolerant of such behavior. Ok, I'll get off my high horse now. :-) Abecedare (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. But you must also understand that the trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia. Who is going to compile, without payment, an exhaustive summary of literature on the date of the BP for an article at "citizendium" which is just sitting there, untrolled? But as you have trolls "corroding" a topic, knowledgeable people will be spurred into action to set them right. This is how we end up with good articles. We need to accept the trolls as a necessary thorn in our sides. Of course, once the article has been written and all has been said and done on talk, trolling that particular article becomes simple corrosion. These are the articles we should put on permanent semiprotection. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thesis. I don't accept that trolling is the only way to attract editors and improve articles, but I need to (grudgingly) admit that it works in some cases. For example, my attention was initially drawn to this article when another editor was insisting that it should state that BP inspired Einstein's theory of relativity. It was then that others and I noticed how poor the article was. Of course, now that Priyanath, I, and others are already working on the article, such attempts at POV pushing are just a distraction. But I'll follow you in looking at the silver lining: given that I wasted 3-4 hours trying to guard the encyclopedic status quo lets see if I can invest 3-4 hours later this week to actually expand the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

you see? It's Wikipedia's secret of success. Everybody knows the internet is full of annoying falsehoods. But only Wikipedia managed to harness that collective annoyance in a constructive way. Larry Sanger consistently failed to recognize this effect, which means he couldn't understand why Wikipedia works, and trying to take out the annoying bits he never realized he was at the same time getting rid of the main incentive to write good content. Citizendium in three years managed to produce 118 "approved articles" and 980 "developed articles". Wikipedia after nine years has 2,655 "featured articles" and 7,487 "good articles" (disclaimer, it has tens of thousands of good articles. The "Good Article" rating thing is hopelessly broken. "developed articles" on Citizendium are something like our "Start" class, of which we have probably several 100,000s). --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear a nagging voice within me saying that there is something wrong with your "troll-drive-wikipedia" model. But a gruffier voice shouts it down saying that, in the least it is a useful delusion to maintain ones enthusiasm and composure. Irrespective of whether it eventually serves wikipedia, I agree that we have to learn to stop worrying and love the trolls! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

indeed. Wikipedia thrives on the self-delusions of good editors, so it is actually a good thing for you to be deluded. Trolls are bad for the individual editor (more work, more annoyance), but they are good for the project, precisely because they bug the good editors. So both of your voices are right, one is speaking for yourself and the other for the project. Learning to love Wikipedia is learning selflessness. dab (𒁳) 18:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Abecedare/Dab I am trying my best to add good source, I know my best is not always good enough, but in all instances I put in good effort. Wikid^as© 10:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

fair enough Wikidas. I appreciate you were trying to provide a reference in good faith. But you must distance yourself from the notion that the BP "should" predate the 9th century, and that it is "just" a matter of googling the appropriate sources. There is a reason why mainstream scholarship tends to insist the text dates to later than AD 800, and the more you dig into scholarly literature on Sanskrit, the better you will understand the reasons. I appreciate there a suggestion was made, in 1930s scholarly literature, that the text might also date to the 8th century. But it turns out that this suggestion is discredited or at least highly unlikely. This is how scholarship works, a hypothesis is suggested, then it is scrutinized and debated, and sometimes it turns out that the hypothesis simply turns out as being highly improbable. At this point, "in the 1930s, some scholar or other suggested X, but nobody now believes this to be likely" is a statement that is at best of historical interest, and of very limited importance in an encyclopedia article. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to have just a sentence that it pre-dates Sankara in view of most researchers. I am not hung up on 7th or 8th century. I know it is hard to understand, but MOST people I meet still speak of Vopadeva as the author... and Sankara as being much older. It is just a practical consideration and mentioning what I did solves that. If you look at the talk I did not protest when they were slaging Prabhupada, I prefer to stay off conflict where I can. Wikid^as© 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, no modern scholars seriously consider Vopadeva to be the author, and the rare mentions of him in that context only point out that he was born c. 1250, so even the c. 1000 date is enough to kill that speculation.[32][33] Also, 'most researchers' do not give a date that predates Shankara. Consensus leans toward c. 1000, with a wider range given because it can't be proven. I think the article does a good job of emphasizing that "it is not possible to set a specific date for any Purana" (Rocher) and that "it is meaningless to speak of 'the date' of a Sanskrit Purana, because many generations of bards, etc., have been involved in the accumulation of material which at some stage has been given a name." (Hardy)[34] Priyanath ^talk 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And where is "Consensus leans toward c. 1000" comes from - is it your own composition? What is your sources on it? Sure Vopadeva mistake is worth mentioning. Wikid^as© 05:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please go back to discussing the age of the BP on the BP talkpage? This page is for matters that concern myself, personally. It is unclear why Wikidas wants the BP to be as old as possible, but this is also irrelevant, because that's his personal opinion, while we are writing an encyclopedia. The very fact that Wikidas "wants" the BP to have a certain age makes him unfit to edit, because it consttutes a WP:COI. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another false fact - I never 'wanted' it nor did I state anything in excess to what was already in the article, get your facts straight. You help is appreciated, I am moving back to the talk page. Wikid^as©

you created needless wikidrama over nothing at all. Please stop doing that. If you have nothing to say beyond what is already in the article, consider not saying anything. Also, I have not been "slagging Prabhupada". I haven't even mentioned him, for the simple reason that he has literally nothing to do with this discussion. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Race (sociology)

In 10 days, no less! You have to admire the industriousness. --Aryaman (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder yet again

The usual suspects are pushing again for the Cyrus cylinder to be promoted as the world's first human rights charter, this time in Human rights. Given your involvement in the discussions on this issue last time it came up, your views would be welcome at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mohit

A tag has been placed on Mohit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vishnu2011 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism: need help with vandal page moving

A vandal User_talk:EasoPothen has vandalised the page Knanaya that has been there for over 5 years and moved it to a title of his own creation called Tekkumbhagar claiming to have discussed it in the talk page. There was no consent to moving the page. except his own consent through another I.P. address. Somebody has tried to rectify the vandalism but probably being unable to revert back to the original has moved the page to even unlikely title of Knanaua. This is gross vandalism. I am not able to revert back this vandalism of page moving. Please move the page back to its original title Knanaya that was there for over 5 years. Please help and stop the vandal User:EasoPothen . thanks Vagab (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong objections to the comments by Vagab

The entire Knanaya article is crap written with false and propaganda information. The Knanaya is a name adopted by these people in 1992. They are still known with different names. Anyone can see that users such as User:Vagab who acts as protectors of the wiki page dont contribute in discussions. Please check the talk page- Talk:Knanaua. Many people has already pointed about the faulty data in the article. You can check the archives also.

About moving of the title- the current moving of title- Talk:Knanaua#POV_Title is active from July 2009. You can check the ip's on discussion page. Previous moves can be checked in archives. The title Knanaya is a good candidate for Knanaya_(disambiguation). Propagandist has to discuss with reasons if they have any objections.

Users such as User:Vagab dont discuss about the veracity of statements in the current article using talk page but repeatedly put propganada materials written by the kottayam diocese in Knanaya page which is not acceptable for an encylpedia and to other Tekkumbhagar.If they have something to say they should better use talk page and stop putting propaganda materials.They should give reasons for the statements in the article in talk pages with evidences. There are very strong reasons for a move of the article. If protectors of propaganda has problems they should use the talk page to discuss for a consenus than reverting edits and repeatedly putting propaganda materials which are created after 1990 from Kottayam diocese.

EasoPothen (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Move of the page- Knanaya

The talk page- Talk:Knanaua to Talk:Knanaya was not moved when you moved the article Knanaua to Knanaya. Do i need to create a request with other admins or in the relevent pages ? Thanks. EasoPothen (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More on Outlines

Hello. I've written a reply to you at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Outlines in Propaedia and in general print (beginning "Dab: ..."), and was wondering if there were any specific points that I missed, or (even better) if anything there is helpful? I'd really like to pull the discussions away from the accusatory angle, and towards a "what next?" direction. Less battleground, more collaboration.

Sorry if you're sick of the whole subject, and sorry if any of my points in that thread are too bluntly stated.

I strongly agree with you that the outline project needs more input from experienced and critical editors. I, too, frequently get irritated by Transhumanist's style of writing, and his bold page-rename frenzies. But I particularly want to avoid a witchhunt, and I generally want the discussions to avoid mixing [personal recriminations] with [content disagreements]. Can you help us by keeping them separate?

I also really want to avoid anyone's oversimplifying any of the issues involved with our various sets of navigational pages. Hence I'm trying my damnedest to stick to facts, without opinion. (Eg. List/Index of mathematics articles in mainspace since 2002.)

As one of the most vocal critics of the endeavour, but someone who still recognizes the outlines' potential, I'd value any positive feedback you might like to offer. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for this friendly note. I will repeat once again that I believe that there can be a constructive "outlines" project, but only if it is unambiguously declared as an indexing effort under Portal:Contents. My demands are simple:

• take them out of main namespace
• stop ripping article leads by copy-paste

after that, my main doubt will be, can this project attract a sufficient number of knowledgeable editors to develop into anything useful, but I will be more than happy to see it prosper in spite of my misgivings. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

One set of issues I'd really like to get specifically clarified, and I then hope to bring to a wider forum soon:

1. Would you agree that all the other pages that are "Navigational" should be moved out of mainspace?
2. Which sets specifically: Outlines, Indexes, Glossaries, Lists of lists, Topic lists? And which of the more debatable ones: Timelines, year articles (1977, 1977 in literature, etc), disambiguation pages?

I'll emphasize that almost all of these have been in mainspace since the beginning of Wikipedia. But, individual editors have raised doubts about each set belonging in mainspace, over the years.

Therefor: I'm thinking that they ought to be handled together, as they all seem to be a distinct type of "non-article" that are purely for navigation.

(There's lots more context, but I'm trying to be brief/concise as possible. I'm still working out which of the core details need to be framed, whilst avoiding WP:TLDR) Thanks again for any insights you might have, or suggestions for who to ask for further input before taking it to VP. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite surprised if anybody had ever seriously proposed to move disambiguation pages out of main space. By "seriously" I mean outside a WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument. It would improve your credibility not to mention them in this way, since they obviously serve a clearly defined need and wouldn't be able to do so in a different namespace. Hans Adler 19:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they are at the very edge, but see "disambiguation namespace" - there have been a few proposals, just using that specific/exact word combination alone. More later. (feel free to move to my talkpage, and see also my comments at User talk:Verbal#Outline RfC help request). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Followup on the above: How else can we think about/group these sets of pages?

What criteria are we using to differentiate between a page-set that belongs in mainspace, vs not? (without quoting Wikipedia:Namespace)

A good (as in awkward, and hence representative of where it gets complicated) example is Lists of mathematics topics (a list of just the lists), which was a Featured List from October 27, 2005 until December 31, 2007, and is clearly a "navigational page" in some senses. It is in the Category:Lists of lists.

• What distinguishes it, in the abstract, from a disambiguation page? (apart from the single paragraph introductions and unfocus)
• and what distinguishes it from a List-Of-Topics? We have the (index) List of mathematics articles which is alphabetical and completist, V.S. List of topics in mathematics (nee Outline of mathematics) which is a structured-list and just contains "Core/Basic" topics.

What other pages would be good examples for discussion/contemplation? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

let me invert the burden here. Why are you guys so desperate to find reasons to keep these lists of articles in main namespace, seeing that the main page Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge is not, and has never been, in main namespace. The default approach will obviously be to place pages subordinate to the portal page also as sub-pages of the portal page in terms of page name. Nobody has ever pointed out any coherent reason why this should not be so. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

here I have the beginning of this saga. TT renamed "lists of basic topics" to "outlines". This was an exceptionally bad idea, but it drives home the point that "outline" is simply a fancy term for "list of basic topics". Things were fine until 3 January of this year, when we had an innocent Portal page named "list of basic topics"[35] It appears that TT started renaming "list of basic topics" to "topic outline" in November 2008[36] ("topic outline of" is at least still a reasonable title, as opposed to the absurdities we get with the shortened "outline of"), and he started going really berserk beginning in May. He began popping up on my watchlist with his ill-advised moves and renames from July, but I assumed that there was some sort of consensus behind his actions. He became completely unbearable from August.

In view of this history, please stop asserting that "things have always been like this". There has been a collection of "list of basic topics" for some time, which people began to associate with Portal:Contents over time, as this portal was created precisely to accommodate such non-articles that had accreted in article namespace over time. Things got out of hand completely only in spring 2009, with the unilateral and extremely ill-advised actions on the part of TT. We are now looking at how to undo the damage, which would be bad enough without TT's contined active and passive resistance.

I also catch TT moving non-articles into main namespace as early as March 2007. Way to go TT, you have been sabotaging our namespace division for three years and then you have the gall of claiming 'things have always been like this'. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not "you guys". Please stop grouping me with other people, especially people I so often disagree with, such as Transhumanist. You're having a discussion with me, an individual human, in this thread. (Yes, TT continually fucks up pagemoves. (I don't swear lightly). If you want to discuss him, let's take it to a different thread)
2. Outlines portal - It was located at Wikipedia:Basic topics from 2001 until December 2005. It was then moved to List of basic topics until August 2006, then at Lists of basic topics until March 2007, when it was moved back into projectspace at Wikipedia:Lists of basic topics. Finally in November 2007, it was moved to Portalspace for the first time. (with dozens more temporary moves and dozens of talkpage threads for each)
3. More importantly, follow an example page: Economics basic topics was called that from December 2001 until early 2006. It was then moved to List of basic economics topics where it stayed until October 2008, when it was moved to Topic outline of economics. Finally in March 2009 it was moved to Outline of economics. (with minor moves inbetween). BUT ALWAYS IN MAINSPACE.
4. You didn't answer any of the very specific questions I asked. I don't understand why not. I hoped they would lead to a greater understanding of the fundamental disagreement. I'll try to condense it into a single question:

Should Lists of mathematics topics be moved to another namespace? Why or why not? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More Kambojas

I wondered if you thought this edit of mine was an improvement? Also, I have suggested a merge of Kamboja colonists of Sri Lanka and History of Sri Lanka and so far had one vote in approval. Again, any views welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are doing a good job. I am glad this stuff is now on some watchlists so we can make progress cleaning it up. We really need to pinpoint a few reasonable sources concerning all this migration business. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a quick look at the Eastern Kambojas section in Kambojas? Anything at all that might be a reliable secondary source on the migration to Tibet issue? Foucher? A history of Bengal? A history of Bihar? Any of it OK to support the idea that the name turns up there, even if nothing for a possibility of migration? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot substantiate any "Kamboja migration". In the case of the Bengali Kamboja dynasty of the 10th century, "Kamboja" is just a family name, claiming descent from some famous Kamboja of antiquity or other. No "migration". This is 1,500 years after the actual Kamboja state, and has nothing to do with migrations or continuing tribal identity.

The best I can on Kambojas in general is this,

"The Kambojas -- according to Benveniste, 1958:45-48 -- were Iranians who adhered to Mazdaism, to whom the Aramaic inscription of Ashoka in Kandahar was addressed. With regard to their name, Witzel (2006:461 n. 11) proposes the following speculation: 'Kamboja may have been the title of the Persian crown prince, whence he perhaps got the name Cambyses (Old Pers. Kambaujiya).' This speculation had already been proposed by Charpantier and criticized by La Vallée Poussin. ... The Manava Dharma Shastra mentions the Yavanas and the Kambojas ... -- along with the Dravidas, the Shakas, the Chinese and others -- as being Kshatriyas who gradually went down to reach the level of Shudras because they did not observe Brahmanical law."

--dab (𒁳) 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Mr Kamboja Man is back and reverting. As far as I can tell 99% of this is pure drivel. --Folantin (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

note how he also never reacts to comments on his talkpage. This is for rolling back. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The real question is whether the Kambojas reached Kumari Kandam in time, not that of Sri Lanka. Why go for Ravan's home when you have a whole (albeit fictional) Atlantis waiting to be conquered? Pectore^talk 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

user Hxseek did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of kosovo history a lot of changes. just check the history of kosovo.-- LONTECH  Talk  12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhartṛhari/Bhartṛhari/Bharthari

Hi dab, at Talk:Bhartṛhari (poet) you had said "King Bharthari is often mistaken for, but hardly identical with the poet Bhartrhari" — do you know more about this? (Note that the page almost entirely deals with the king Bharthari — does this need to be cleaned up, then?) There do seem to be several authors who identify either the poet with the king, or the poet with the grammarian [these relations are rarely transitive and often not even symmetric :-)], so we should probably mention that. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Elfrida Rathbone

Not really stalking you! I was just checking where we were up to with the ubiquitous Ks. Is Elfrida an Elfriede? If so, can she be added to your article? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sure - we have lots of Elfridas, I wasn't doing an exhaustive list, just a quick stub so I woudn't introduce a redlink at elf. --dab (𒁳) 07:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for the Race and intelligence article

I’m posting this comment on several users’ talk pages, because I’d like all of you to give me your input about a large change I’m considering making to the race and intelligence article. In my opinion, the article in its current state has a lot of issues. Fixing them has also proven to be next to impossible, partly because new changes have been made more quickly than it’s been possible to build consensus to undo changes that had been made previously.

I’m also of the opinion that the article as it existed in December of 2006 was considerably more informative, more balanced, and better-written than its current version. What I’m proposing is that rather than continuing to try and improve the article one part at a time, I would like to revert the article to the state that it had in 2006, while updating the things that need to be updated after three years.

The current discussion about this has been on my user talk page, towards the bottom of it. I would appreciate any of you reading the discussion about this idea, and letting me know there what you think of it. I’d like to be supported by the consensus of as many editors as possible before I attempt this. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A general comment. It is better to seek consensus on the article talk page rather than on user pages. Otherwise, it smacks of canvassing like minded people rather than attempting to build a community consensus. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, what is and isn't considered unacceptable WP:canvassing depends on things such as how many users are being contacted and how the message is worded, rather than where the discussion takes place. Those are the rules mentioned on the policy page, and I've been careful to follow them. I haven't gone into detail in my message about why I prefer the 2006 version of this article, and I've only sent it to a total of four other users. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're trying to build a consensus that supports your point of view before you take it to the talk page. That, IMO, is not kosher. However, this is a meant as a purely general comment. Take what you want from it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for editwarring twice on this now, and has been looking for a way to get around consensus. Have a look at his talk page and the article's talk page if you have time to wade through them. T34CH (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a way to get around consensus, I'm looking for a way to get around you. I'm not joking about this. At least two other editors (in addition to me) have pointed out your apparent disregard for consensus; how you make dozens of changes at a time without discussing them first, and how you revert any attempts to undo them unless the problem with each individual change can be explained in "excruciating detail" (to use your words). While we were attempting to build the consensus necessary to meet your demands about how to undo one change you'd made, you continued to make dozens of other changes, while expecting the same thing again before we could undo any of them. If you're going to make changes without consensus, require this level of consensus to undo them, and continue to make changes faster than it's possible to build that consensus, then what I'm proposing is the only way it's possible to improve the article as long as you're editing it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rehash this again (and sorry dab that this is occurring here), but there is a clear consensus on the talk page that agrees with my changes. Only Occam and Varoon have made such claims, with no support from other editors. In addition, nobody has bothered to point to ANY edit I made that is especially problematic, despite the fact that I made very incremental edits so that my changes would be highly transparent. I first asked for any example... any at all. After none was given I asked that the worst example be given and expounded upon (this is where the "excruciating detail" quote comes from, out of frustration with being accused with no evidence). Again, nothing. Please don't mischaracterize me or the debate. Let's keep this discussion on the article talk page, and let's stick to actual verifiable facts. T34CH (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to me and Varoon, problems with this have been raised by David Kane, Distributivejustice, and Fixentries. However, Dab can look at the article talk page and see this for himself.

Dab, I would appreciate it if you could. VA has suggested the possibility of you acting as a mediator there, which I think would be useful. If you would like to do this there, I can provide some more specific examples of the behavior I'm describing from T34CH that's been a problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion was more in the direction of everybody stand back and let him do what he does best. I don't think dab is into "mediating" much. ;) --Aryaman (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I commend Captain Occam for putting up with the nonsense at the race and intelligence topics. If I am unhappy about people crossposting to my talkpage, it would be up to me to ask them to stop. I do not necessarily shre Captain Occam's view on the topic in all respects, so he is not simply trying to team up with me, he is asking for genuine assistance. Personally, I do not plan on investing much time in this topic, because there is too much trolling to make such an investment worthwhile, and also because I do not have a particular interest in the topic. But I may edit from time to time. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about my proposal to revise the article based on its state in December of 2006? My main reason for cross-posting about this was to obtain other editors' feedback about this idea. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Dab. Your opinion is appreciated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh (2nd nomination). Thanks. Brand[t] 22:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant criminality

I think this article needs a lot of work. I only just realised that you wrote most of it. I'm proposing to expand the scope, see the talk page. Fences&Windows 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs work, I just created it because I think it is better to have a stub than nothing at all. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

You have mentioned here about separation of scholarly criticism and egg-throwing nationalist mob. I tried to do this and also tried to add valid perspectives and discussions that happened at the Amecican Academy of Religion, but all this have been removed, and plagiarized content added and personally attacked. Even the scholarly material was removed by linking it with BJP. Will appreciate if you can share your thoughts. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)