User talk:Dbachmann

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 / 21 14:49, 11 Apr 2009 / 22 – 18:47, 26 Aug 09 / 23 21 Nov 09 / 24 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Mahabharata

Hello Dbachmann,I want to add upparva in the table given in Mahabharata Article,what do you suggest,I have also done some modification in top para,please guide me to add upparva in table-list in Mahabharata.--Myth&Truth (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what an "upparva" is. Please try to pull your own weight, ok? I'll be sure to try and help as best I can on Talk:Mahabharata. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,upparva Means sub-parva,As you know Mahabharata have 18 Parva as well as 100 sub-parva(canto),In the table given in Mahabharata Article consists of Parva name list only,It doesn't contain sub-parva name,i have an Idea to add sub-parva name list too,which is given in Mahabharata.

I have also done some Modifications in Mahabharata Article,Please Check them and instruct me whether they are not violating Wiki-policy,as I am new a Newcomer.--Myth&Truth (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you mean upa-parvan? I full list of these would certainly be welcome. I have seen your additions, they seem fine to me except for formatting issues. You should not give naked google books urls as references. You need to cite the work properly, with page number. Also, why do you google for "saraswati river" in a "reference" to the statement that "Bhārata meant the Mahabharata without the accessory legends (Upakhayanas)"? --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,I simply searched articles on google regarding mahabharata,The book by C.V. Vaidya describes Mahabharata Redactions and textual history along with the sarasvati river,So i searched sarasvati river in google,Do you have any good suggestion for searching article and adding them as a reference

I think adding 100 sub-parva Name-list in the table provided in the article will stretch it badly,should it be added seperately.--Myth&Truth (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This can always be split off. You can begin compiling the list in your user-space, for example at User:Myth&Truth/Mahabharata. You can add it to the article once it's complete. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,I have modified that list upto some extent in User:Myth&Truth/Mahabharata.--Myth&Truth (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed the 100 parvan name list,Check them.I also gave Reference for it.

• Now regarding my Previous Edit to Mahabharata Article ,Bhārata meant the Mahabharata without the accessory legends,I have provided actual source and its page no,If You prefer it then keep,otherwise revert,Thank you.--Myth&Truth (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab, FYI: most of the new accounts commenting at Mahabharata, Rigveda, Sarasvati River and related pages over the last two months are socks of the same user. In particular, Myth&Truth (talk · contribs) = Mayurasia (talk · contribs) = Bankelal (talk · contribs) = Mkbdtu (talk · contribs) = Merushikhar (talk · contribs) = Mkbdce (talk · contribs) = Vedvyasa (talk · contribs) = ... and all 115.240.*.* IPs. Some of the points made by the user may well have a grain of validity, but as Rudra and I discovered after much discussion and source-hunting, the user also makes up fake references to push his POV, and resorts to trolling, abusing, and impersonation on being challenged. Thought this information would save you the effort of trying to guide each of the new socks to relevant content policies. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Dbachmann!I donot know what blame has been covered over me,I simply do what you instructed me and I also want to complete remaining tasks of making articles of parvans as you suggested me.I got a nice reward of sockpeppetry from some wiki Admins,Not mention if they think I broke wiki policy.I see now that my Account has been blocked for keeping sock Account.I donot know what it is,But i Request wiki not to block any user on only ip basis,one ip is used by thousand of people daily.Like in my case 115.236-244.--.--,there exists 30 lacs user on it.

• I have completed the Sub-parvans table work,keep it if You think there is any use of it now.I give you my best regards for helping me.Please donot keep hard feelings for me,Thank you--.--Myth&Truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.70.151 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Frei-Laubersheim fibula

Hi, dab. I just put this in the mainspace. It could benefit from a copy-edit by an experienced and interested editor. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for a very nice job. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Input

Please add your input here Thanks --Sikh-History 09:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Magisterium (fencing)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Sandstein  11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Control of fire...

I know you are trying to improve the article (I only made it two years ago as an assignment for my human evolution course), but the wording changes I made only removed the reference to "James" (I attempted to refer to a specific writer a while ago and I was told that was wrong or something) and used the same references as the rest of the article to turn your two paragraph section under "Evidence" into one and removed the "Claimed evidence..." sentence as neither of us has found a publication other than James that specifically says that the early Paleolithic evidence is controversial. It might be in James and it would be good to use that, but seeing as I've been out of a university for almost a year now, I can no longer access the Library proxy to get to these sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do hope to work together with you in clearing this up. I think in speculative topics such as this there is no way around mentioning exactly who said what, i.e. when reporting what James said, there is no way around saying "James".

I still do have access to jstor, and I can send you the article if you like. But, of course, the James article is 20 years old and it may be worthwhile to look around for more recent publications. --dab (𒁳) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time my limitations were that I had to find publications within the last 20 years. It was the best I could come up with at the time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You did well, and I have no intention of pulling down your work. My only concern is that the article was being too assertive about extremely speculative claims for controlled fire before 1 Mya. James does make clear that they have very little merit. --dab (𒁳) 06:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was not trying to make any claims and I am not trying to edit war. I just reported on what the papers said. Clearly, a 17 year old paper was probably not the best source back then, but it was all that I could find.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not "report on what the papers said". The paper says "evidence for fire". You turn that into "evidence of controlled fire". The paper has the main purpose of debunking claims as speculative. You go out of your way to present these same claims as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. I can accept that these were honest mistakes, but your present behaviour is difficult to explain in this way. I point them out explicitly, and all you seem to be able to do is say "I didn't hear that. I just report on what the papers say".

The paper's dating to 1989 doesn't even enter into this. If we find a more recent paper of comparable quality, we might consider relying on that when in doubt, but so far this is simply about reporting accurately what your source says, never mind its age.

Look, I am grateful for the work you did on the article, but it has flaws, and they need to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Control of pseudohistory

Yellow monkey told me you could help me dealing with a editor that´s spreading pseudohistory all over wikipedia.Are you interested?--Knight1993 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You best bet is to present the case at WP:FTN. I am watching this noticeboard and I will react to cases that catch my interest. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may intervene, the said user does not really spread fringe theories in the strict sense, but rather more or less subtle misinterpretations and synthesis over a vast range of articles for years now (he is one of top 200 'contributors' in the whole of WP.EN). There is probably not a single edit of him/her which would justify admin action taken alone, but the sheer scale and consistent bias of his/her edits have deteriorated much of what is written here about pre-modern technology and science and have incensed quite a lot of other users by now: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#A massive loophole in WP:Verifiability Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am one of those who have been disturbed by this user's subtle misinterpretations. At the root is a continued practice of subtly misreading secondary sources to make Islamic scientific achievements appear more modern than they really are, and then duplicating those arguments in multiple articles to which they only have marginal relevance. (This duplication contributes to what is an otherwise incredible edit count). It's not as glaring a problem as those you have dealt with, but your experience in dealing with nationalistic bias would be helpful in dealing with this case, if and when it comes to some formal action. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance?

See talk:ghost#Undue weight?. As you can see, this topic is sort of bugging me... and a few weeks ago I had never even thought about it! Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Jat People

Hi fellow editor, I feel this Mediation dispute involves you more than me, as I have been reinstating your edits. See here. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in "mediation", I can speak for myself and I do not need "mediators" to interpret my position for me. I appreciate the general sentiment behind "mediation", but I simply haven't ever seen it do any good. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not me that has requested Mediation, but I have reverted edits that were made against your edits, therfore strictly speaking the editor in question is questioning your edits. I can see your logic, and therfore clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks --Sikh-History 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

hi

I want to know what's your reason on protecting Vajra and Rigveda. They were never protected before, but you decided to protect them indefinitely the first time either of them ever got protected.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

These articles are not protected, they are semiprotected. Quite an important difference there. Feel free to check out the article histories if you are interested. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As it hasn't been made clear the reason Everyone Dies In the End is bringing this up here is because these articles has been bought up on WP:RUP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a user who refers to semiprotection as "indefinate block" should get the hang of things a little more before worrying too much about permanently sprotected articles. If some admin should decide to try unprotection, let them go ahead, we can always reprotect if the trolling persists. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like being insulted. That was a direct shot at me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, semiprotecting something indefinitely when it is not needed defeats the purpose of wikipedia. Maybe you should see my history on wikipedia. I have a very good track record for fighting vandalism. Insulting me is uncalled for.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• In case you've missed it, there is currently a discussion on this topic at WP:AN. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jat People

It looks like the mediation on Jat People will take a while and sikh-history said to speak to you.The Jat people page definitely needs improvement so let me tell you what I would like to do and if you're okay with it then I'll go ahead and do it.

• I want to improve the Origins and genetic studies. It has only one sentence on the origins of the jat people but 7 sentences on the origins of the Romany people. the Romany connection needs its own section under jat origins or it needs to be summarized
• In the Origins and genetic studies section I want to add something along the lines of "19th century scholars A,B,C have suggested this theory because of whatever reasoning. However other scholars D,E,F have disputed this because of a gap in the record or some other reason. Include other genetic studies on jat origins."
• I understand you and sikh-history have apprehensions about me because I am a new editor but please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Sorry, this is stupid. I am myself "experienced with handling disputes". What these articles need are not people patronizing editors as if they couldn't speak for themselves, but editors with experience in the subject matter itself.

I have never seen a mediator willing to pull their own weight in assessing the details of the subject matter. All they do is sit back and say "let's hear your point of view again". This is a royal waste of time for everybody. "Uninvolved" for this mediation thing is an euphemism for "clueless, and proud of it".

I am willing to discuss with anyone willing and able to absorb academic literature on the subject. Anyone unable or unwilling to dig into and absorb academic literature does imho have no business to even consider themselves in a "dispute" on anything. Such an approach would clear the air of non-issues due to half-informed ideologized pov-pushing to a surprising degree. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Physics history articles

Hi Dab, wondering if you are up to speed with pre-modern physics history. One contgroversial Jagged 85 (talk · contribs)[1] has been going around adding stuff everywhere saying that many things were invented/discovered much earlier by Muslims in medieval times, but a lot of people who have checked the soruces ssay they are faked. Can you make a quick survey of it, eg Physics in medieval Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk • contribs)

Many Muslim/Hindu editors are desparate to prove that everything was invented by medieval Muslims / ancient Indians. Since very few of them actually know what they are talking about, they end up distorting things beyond recognition, burying the very real claims of precedence that these cultures do have.

Nationalism and ethnic pride are extremely bad guides to editing articles, even when the editors act in best faith.

In the present case, the article takes valid references to medieval scholarship and compiles them in a way that creates the appearance to the casual reader that medieval Muslim scholarship can somehow be taken to compete with the scientific revolution in the early modern period. Medieval Islamic science is astoundingly advanced, but "astounding" only to those who already have background knowledge on what was possible in the Middle Ages and what wasn't. To people without such a background, medieval science, Islamic or not, is rather astoundingly primitive. You have to be surprised how little was known first before you can be surprised what the scientific pioneers did manage to achieve.--dab (𒁳) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your discussion here and wondered if you might take a look at the material at User:Syncategoremata/Misuse of sources, where I (and others) have collected examples of problematic edits by the particular editor mentioned by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs) above? Note that most of the examples collected there are not new, but at least one dates from last month.

I would be particularly glad of any advice about the best way to proceed with this. I am too new here at Wikipedia to know how to respond to such abuses.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the list you compiled is extremely useful. You illustrate exactly the kind of pov-pushing that is hard to catch and difficult to clean up. The only thing we can do is remove the offending passages. If the user insists on re-inserting them, it is good to have such a compilation for quick reference for the benefit of previously uninvolved editors. If the case is clear-cut, the pov-pusher will run into WP:3RR very quickly. If the case is less than clear-cut, the article in question will likely be tagged for {{NPOV}}, {{synthesis}} etc. for an extended period before somebody makes an effort to sort it all out based on solid references. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The editor involved has been at it for a long time; you and I briefly discussed some of his history of astronomy edits (although without focusing on the editor) about three years ago. He seems to be continually pushing to test the limits, but is careful to avoid blatant violations of the rules. Given his prolific, and frequently improperly sourced, editing, cleaning up after him takes much more effort than he contributes to his edits.

I know that dispute resolution procedures don't deal well with the substance of articles but is there any way to focus on an editor's habitual misuse of sources? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Hi dab, this is up for featured article status again. It's somewhat improved since the last time, but I still have concerns about it. The problem is that I don't know anything about the issue, so I can't be sure my concerns are justified. If you have time and inclination, would you mind looking at the nomination? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive2. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you could do whatever you wanted with that article, what would it be? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If I could do whatever I wanted and I had two days to spare, I would sit down and collect all material we have on "Jesus and history", including historical Jesus, quest for the historical Jesus, historicity of Jesus, Historicity of the canonical Gospels, Christ myth theory and possibly others, and sit down to work out a way to present this material in a cleanly organized way.

The main point I keep making at the Christ myth talkpage is not that the material as such is flawed, or that the editors involved are incompetent, thank god they are doing not such a bad job at all, but that there are numerous other articles of similar and ill-defined scope.

Wikipedia is not just about writing "your" article or defending "your" page, it is about arranging complex material in a clean and encyclopedic way across articles. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's very confusing to have all those pages, and what seems to be content forking. I was wondering how you'd arrange the pages, whether there's a lot of repetition and several could be merged, or whether they'd all need to stay as separate pages but somehow arranged differently. I'm new to this so it's hard to get an overview. By the way, Eugene has just submitted an RfAr. Again, it's hard for me to judge whether it's needed or premature. Your views there would probably be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene wants a content decision from RfAr? This is so ill-advised I actually feel a little sorry for him. He did a good job on the article even if he has OWN issues and I can understand his frustration with the deadlock (A deadlock he has himself helped to perpetuate, by joining the game of IDHT). God forbid the arbcom decides to meddle with this, it mean that the article will be truly buggered for at least another year.

Any experienced Wikipedian looking at the Jesus and history non-disambiguation-page will sit down and weep. This would be very difficult to fix even if it was just left to the good and knowledgeable editors, but of course this isn't going to happen, because the topic will remain trolled by both religious and anti-religious ideologists to a degree that will drive away all genuinely detached and encyclopedic editors. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the second time he's gone to ArbCom about this recently. He asked them to rule on content in February. This time he seems to want to have them warn me. [2]

I've started to write up a list of sources (as much for my own benefit as anything else) at User:SlimVirgin/CMT sources. If you have time or inclination, you're welcome to join in. My problem is that I know little about it and have little interest. :) I only got involved after trying to do a copy edit when it came to FAC for the second time. Not sure I have enough interest to keep me going, but I've ordered some books from the library anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_April_11

You deleted three files but gave no reason. Two people !voted to keep it and one person questioned whether it was free or not. No one actually explicitly moved for deletion. Would you be so kind as to explain your rationale? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a publication is now PD, correct, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, no harm here. If I'm wrong, I certainly want to know it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, what is wrong with the previous day's image you deleted as well? Clearly I'm missing something. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Re:Explanation on my talk page) Thanks for the info/background. AnonmieBot (or whatever the damn thing is called) basically pre-deleted the file with no edit summary. Had I known the problem, I would have made sure to investigate deeper. Lesson learned and I'll try to watch out for that in the future. This guy's story keeps changing and with all the copyvios, WP:AGF is pretty much out the window and he's trying to game the system/troll. Thanks for the explanation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid^as© 09:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Phrygian language

--Alsace38 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) We are working since 2 month on phrygian vocabulary!

which sourc your want exactly? say it! and for which word?!

My dear friend, i well know that wikipedia is not wikitionay, but as far as i am concerned, it is important to show to people what was this old language: we only did give around 20 words, i hope wikitonnary on phrygian will start quickly,

i have a lot of word on phrygian... take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsace38 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alsace38, what is your problem? I am glad you have a lot of Phrygian words. Please add them to wiktionary. Try to understand the concerns I am raising on Talk:Phrygian language, and if you like to comment, please try to make a coherent point. I do not absolutely object to listing a few words in the article, just make sure that the etymology of each word is referenced, and avoid listing random cognates in random other IE languages, it's pointless. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Phrygian word "beko" "bekos"

You ask me more detail on this word "bekos",, bread in Phrygian?

In kurdish we say "bakût" It is normal to ve different words beacause phrygian was spoken 1200 BC, and kurdish is spoken now 2010: it make around 3000 years of evolutions!

Bakût is food in Kurdish to say eating bread also!

look at: http://ku.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=gida&variant=ku http://legerin.ferheng.org/search.php?lang=enstitu&query=bak%C3%BBt.

i have a lot of word list but people are angry, they don't want to hear any kurdish words! --Alsace38 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does Kurdish have to do with anything? Of course we want to hear kurdish words, but not on the Phrygian language page. Add your Kurdish words to wikt:Category:Kurdish language. Because they are, like, Kurdish and not Phrygian. If you want to argue that bakût is derived from bekos, cite your academic reference at wikt:bakût. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on dabs talkpage, but I noticed you were talking about the rather famous Phrygian word Bekos. Alsace38, we can't use Original research on cognates even if they look likely to you or even to all of us. We need published sources that make the connections for us. I noticed that "Bakut" is also similar to Welsh "Bara" but we can't just go suggesting similarities, because in all likelihood "Bakut" and "Bara" have entirely separate histories meaning they are not cognates, but totally separate words meaning the same thing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

--Alsace38 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)wel you are happy to clean ever thing which doesn't has any sources? well, then, will you clean that also? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages#Comparison_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian_language#Lexicon ? why not to clean every thing? or is it only self decision to clean what i did wrote?

Scoti and Gaels

There's a lot of duplication in the Scoti article, do you think Scoti should be a redirect or just heavily trimmed? It's discussed on the talk pages of both articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

oh dear. Both articles need cleanup. The Gaelsoneneeeds to make up its mind what it is about, the contemporary ethnicity, the Middle Ages, or remote pagan Celtic antiquity. The Scoti article needs to lose the cheap copy-paste content duplication. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rigveda

Re your slightly snippy edit summary, yes, I'm watching Rigveda. What I'm looking for are problem edits by IPs or non-autoconfirmed editors. User:Atrijoshi's edits to that article would not have been picked up by the previous semi-protection. The one IP edit since unprotection was not a problem edit either, and as you haven't reverted that one, presumably you think the same? GedUK  10:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. Although your assertion that you this edit (which incidentially I did revert), an alteration to a verbatim quote without explanation or edit summary, is "not a problem edit", I find somewhat strange. Atrijoshi could have made their disruptive edit regardless of semiprotection, this is not the issue. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a crap mood this morning, shouldn't really have fired this off. Sorry again. GedUK  17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW its on my watchlist too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)